While I bet there are not a huge crowd of MF followers in this forum that make their living shooting medium format cameras at weddings, I'd thought I'd offer my perspective to this small, but influential group of followers of all things medium format.

Good news. The medium is alive and well. And it is a totally different crayon. And if I have a daughter. And if she is planning on getting married, I'd love to know that her chosen photographer is using the best tools available.

#10. Shallow Depth of Field. If you thought shooting 1.4 on a DSLR was shallow, wait until you try shooting f/2.8 on a medium format rig. Noticed how the depth of field in this portrait of my dog, Willy, draws your eye inward. There’s a ton of math needed to determine depth of field in relation to sensor size, distance to subject, focal length, yada yada yada I won’t go into in great detail, but it is a much shallower depth of field from my experience than what I’ve been used to using for the last decade.

This is not correct.

Comparing a 1.4 Nikon or Canon DSLR lens with the same angle of view as a 2.8 lens on a crop sensor (44x33mm), the 1.4 Canon or Nikon lens will have shallower depth of field.

You may be comparing lenses that do not have the same angle of view. For example the angle of view of a 50mm Nikon on a full frame sensor is not the same as an 80mm Mamiya/Phase One on the IQ140that you use.

Their are no Hasselbld, Phase One or Mamiya lenses that will produce the same shallow depth of field and angle of viewcombination of the following on a Nikon or Canon full frame.

24mm 1.435mm 1.450mm 1.4 or 1.285mm 1.4 or 1.2200mm 2.0

The shallowest depth of field lens from Phase is the 150mm 2.8 D IF. Very nice lens.

Lets lok at the closest comparison that would be relevant.

85mm on Nikon/Canon vs Schneider 110mm 2.8 on a 33x44 sensor.

They have almost the same angle of view.

At two meters the Canon 85mm has the shallowest depth of field. 0.040mNikon 85mm 1.4 depth of field: 0.045m

The Schneider 110mm 2.8 with a 33x44 sensor depth of field 0.088m

Even on an IQ 180 the 110mm will still not have the shallower depth of field. 0.080m

Then there is the issue of shallow depth of field usability. The af systems in the latest Canon and Nikon cameras as well as live view make accurate ultra shallow depth of field focusing far more usable and accurate especially for off center compositions.

The king of shallow depth of field will be the new Leica with the Noctilux now that the Leica will have live view.

Another thing to be considered is using the method known as the Brenizer method.He uses this for ultra shallow depth of field shooting that also gives him huge file sizes.

#3. Thinking long-term with an open-source platform.I like modular systems where I have the power to pick and choose what I want to work with. Lenses, bodies, and backs. This gives me greater flexibility over the next 10 years as my shooting style evolves. Heck, if in 10 years I want to shooting landscapes all over the world, I can still use my back on a technical camera. Can’t say that about other big-name DSLRs. Here, my friend Tim Boatman uses an Arca-Swiss Rm3D technical camera mounted with PhaseOne 140 back.

You've got the wrong term here.

The Phase System is not an Open-source platform.To fit the definition of open-source Phase One would have to publish the source code of it's software, drivers and software operating the backs.

I think you are confusing open-source with the Phase one's catch phrase Open System.

If the Phase One system was open source there may already be USB drivers available..... just kidding.

#11. Optimal ISO. With my PhaseOne IQ, there’s a lower base ISO of 50 vs. 100 which means I can get 1 stop more flash power than the closest a DSLR. This gives me more options to use shallower depth-of-field, without the need for ND grad filters to slow autofocus. But I am not stuck there. Shooting at ISO 400 still looks amazing! And with Sensor+ technology, I can shoot up to ISO 3200 sensitivity and get a beautiful film-like grain, especially when converted to B&W. Plus, those images are smaller in size and speeds up my post-production workflow especially nice when I am editing reception photos.

Nikon D800 can be set to ISO 50. Base ISO is 100, but the ISO 50 setting for all practical purposes will let you do what you are doing with ISO 50 on an MF back in the situation you are describing.Also a 1 or 2 stop ND filter on a D800 will not slow down the focusing to anything near as slow as the DF especially on a fast lens.

The D800 can also shoot different sensor area crops too.Full Frame 36x241.2x 30x201.5x 24x165:4 30x24

Also if you are shooting black and white you can shoot with black and white previewin live view. You can even load custom black and white curves.

#8. Embrace smarter technology. The focus and exposure mask features are powerful and very useful, especially when shooting portraits in a short-amount of time. Confirming critical focus, stat, is super important especially with shallow depth of field of medium format. A double tap on the screen allows me to confirm focus on this portrait of my brother, Sean, doing his “Blue Steel” pose.

Your talking about shallow depth of field, but you post a photo that was taken at at least f8. Nice shot of your brother.

IF we are talking about new technology I would hardly call focus masking rocket science. First of all it will only confirm focus on high contrast features.Second it's after the fact.With a D800 and a few other DSLRs you can shoot in live view with an on Camera HDMI monitor with real time focus masking.There are even very integrated ones available.

Also on the D800 you can zoom in to a pre set magnification with one touch of a button.There is also an advanced face recognition review function that let's you zoom into faces and check focus as well as expressions.It even lets you rapidly go over many faces in a single shot.

#9. Don’t forget old school lenses. You have lots to choose from: Hasselblad, Mamiya, Zeiss, ect. After lots of research, I found the leaf shutter lenses from Schneider-Kreuznach (especially the 55mm) to be stellar. I am not tied to one particular camera manufacturer, but can choose from lenses and camera bodies that have been around for decades. Below, the fastest medium format lens available, the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 is shot wide open at 1/400 sec, ISO 50 in open shade. My friend Tim Ho (pictured left) isn’t fond of the chromatic aberration of the 80mm f/1.9 wide open):

You can use old school lenses on many 35mm DSLR cameras.You can also use MF lenses on them.

True Live view focusing will also make accurate focusing on vintage lenses far more accurate.

It is true however that the Mamiya/Phase DF allows for more use of older lenses than the Hasselblad H system does.

However no MF system comes close to the lens options 35mm DSLR cameras have including the fun stuff by lens baby.

While I bet there are not a huge crowd of MF followers in this forum that make their living shooting medium format cameras at weddings, I'd thought I'd offer my perspective to this small, but influential group of followers of all things medium format.

Good news. The medium is alive and well. And it is a totally different crayon. And if I have a daughter. And if she is planning on getting married, I'd love to know that her chosen photographer is using the best tools available.

I shoot 20-30 weddings a year using Canon 1DX, 5D3's and Hasselblad H4D 40. While I get a slightly better file (after post processing) with the Hassy in perfect lighting condition, the negatives far out weight the positives. The H4D 40 is bulkier, AF is slower, and doesn't do well past ISO 800. Also I get significantly shallower depth of filed with my 50 and 85L's vs the Hasselblad HC 100 2.2 wide open.

In his continued crusade to find anything wrong to nitpick that might shed positive light on anything related to Phase One, Fred has of course, glossed over relevant details...

I don't have time to go through each point, nor the patience any more, but here is one:

What makes a subject pop off an out of focus background (the "look" of shallow DOF shots) is not ONLY related to [Aperture + Angle-of-view]. If all you do is run a calculator you will NOT know how shallow DOF subjects render on any given lens+sensor combo looks.

A Phase One 150/2.8D is significantly sharper wide open than an 85/1.2 (I say this from a lot of experience with both lenses). Moreover the more the resolution the more the detail (assuming a sharp lens), and therefore the more that detail can contrast with an out of focus background. So with an IQ160 or IQ180 for example you have much more detail on the in-focus areas than with a 5D2. The rendering profiles of both lenses are also quite different and I find the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus to be much smoother with the 150/2.8 than with the 85/1.2 - BUT this is definitely a personal/aesthetic assessment so YMMV. The net result, in my eyes, from my shooting, is a significantly better ability to pop a subject matter off a background with shallow DOF when using a FF digital back and a 150/2.8 than a FF Canon with an 85/1.2.

Moreover the 85/1.2 has a lot of chromatic aberration in out of focus areas, which drives me crazy. I (personal feeling) think it makes it look far too digital and severely hampers my use of it wide-open.

I shoot 20-30 weddings a year using Canon 1DX, 5D3's and Hasselblad H4D 40. While I get a slightly better file (after post processing) with the Hassy in perfect lighting condition, the negatives far out weight the positives. The H4D 40 is bulkier, AF is slower, and doesn't do well past ISO 800. Also I get significantly shallower depth of filed with my 50 and 85L's vs the Hasselblad HC 100 2.2 wide open.

Mind you the H4D-40 (like a P40+ et al) is a 1.3 crop from full frame, which limits your ability to shoot shallow depth of field.

Still, I agree with everything you say here (as applied generically to medium format). It is heavier, bulkier, and the AF is slower. I never shoot a wedding 100% medium format. I use each camera where it excels. Notably, with (more recent) Phase backs you can use Sensor+ for a very good ISO1600 and an ISO3200 that can make a beautiful Delta3200 film-like B+W image when grain and contrast is added. If I think I'll need f/2+ISO6400 in a wedding scene I reach for my Canon. In many/most situations I don't I reach for the Phase.

Nikon D800 can be set to ISO 50. Base ISO is 100, but the ISO 50 setting for all practical purposes will let you do what you are doing with ISO 50 on an MF back.Also a 1 or 2 stop ND filter on a D800 will not slow down the focusing to anything near as slow as the DF especially on a fast lens.

Shooting through an ND filter is a very poor shooter-experience in my opinion. Especially when dSLR viewfinders tend to start off small and dark - an ND filter only makes it darker.

Also, ISO50 on a D800 is not a real ISO. It is simply a one stop overexposed image at ISO100. I would not recommend this setting for weddings where white detail (highlights on faces and white dresses) is often essential. Frankly, I'm surprised you'd recommend it.

I would say I agree with Doug on the chromatic aberration issue. It is known as LoCA (Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration) and is typical of fast lenses. I am under the impression that MF lenses are not that fast but quite decent even at full aperture.

I don't think MF makes you into a better photographer, but MF has some advantages if the photographer make best use of the system.

In his continued crusade to find anything wrong to nitpick that might shed positive light on anything related to Phase One, Fred has of course, glossed over relevant details...

I don't have time to go through each point, nor the patience any more, but here is one:

What makes a subject pop off an out of focus background (the "look" of shallow DOF shots) is not ONLY related to [Aperture + Angle-of-view]. If all you do is run a calculator you will NOT know how shallow DOF subjects render on any given lens+sensor combo looks.

A Phase One 150/2.8D is significantly sharper wide open than an 85/1.2 (I say this from a lot of experience with both lenses). Moreover the more the resolution the more the detail (assuming a sharp lens), and therefore the more that detail can contrast with an out of focus background. So with an IQ160 or IQ180 for example you have much more detail on the in-focus areas than with a 5D2. The rendering profiles of both lenses are also quite different and I find the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus to be much smoother with the 150/2.8 than with the 85/1.2 - BUT this is definitely a personal/aesthetic assessment so YMMV. The net result, in my eyes, from my shooting, is a significantly better ability to pop a subject matter off a background with shallow DOF when using a FF digital back and a 150/2.8 than a FF Canon with an 85/1.2.

Moreover the 85/1.2 has a lot of chromatic aberration in out of focus areas, which drives me crazy. I (personal feeling) think it makes it look far too digital and severely hampers my use of it wide-open.

Shooting through an ND filter is a very poor shooter-experience in my opinion. Especially when dSLR viewfinders tend to start off small and dark - an ND filter only makes it darker.

Also, ISO50 on a D800 is not a real ISO. It is simply a one stop overexposed image at ISO100. I would not recommend this setting for weddings where white detail (highlights on faces and white dresses) is often essential. Frankly, I'm surprised you'd recommend it.

I suggested that ISO 50 could be used with no problem in the situation he is describing. Using low ISO so as to use more flash power to darken daylight more.When doing this the highlight exposure is established and controlled by the flash and over exposing highlights is really not an issue when you have control over the light.The OP is going for deeper and moodier wedding photos, not super bright "lifestyle" type images.

As for using an 1 stop ND on a 1.4 lens it is really a non issue. Even if the view finder of the DF is a bit brighter it's by no means two stops brighter so the much faster Nikon or Canon lens will more than compensate for the ND filter.

On top of that the higher dynamic range of the Nikon would also handle the highlight issue with ISO 50.

Here is an examle of highlight recovery with the D800. Not a white dress, but there is certainly plenty of detail recovery from almost blown out highlights in a grossly overexposed area.

Another issue is in back-up. If there's a failure with the MF digital, what's the likelihood that there's a second camera/back/lens other than the "technologically inferior" smaller format? With full-frame digital and for sure, DX digital, a competent photographer will have backups of body/lens/flash, etc. or he's probably a "friend with a nice camera".

When I shot 6x6 for weddings, I not only had backs and bodies for back-up but brought along the 35mm. Today, It's a minimum of three bodies, duplicate lenses/flashes and all sort of redundancies for me.

Bottom like, it's not how much technically the equipment is compared to something, it's the heart of the image and my vision that my clients hire me for and the craftsmanship of the final image.

Technically, perhaps better in some situations. Practically, probably not. It's about light, timing, gesture and the more cumbersome the camera for me, the fewer moments I'll capture.

Another issue is in back-up. If there's a failure with the MF digital, what's the likelihood that there's a second camera/back/lens other than the "technologically inferior" smaller format? With full-frame digital and for sure, DX digital, a competent photographer will have backups of body/lens/flash, etc. or he's probably a "friend with a nice camera".

When I shot 6x6 for weddings, I not only had backs and bodies for back-up but brought along the 35mm. Today, It's a minimum of three bodies, duplicate lenses/flashes and all sort of redundancies for me.

Bottom like, it's not how much technically the equipment is compared to something, it's the heart of the image and my vision that my clients hire me for and the craftsmanship of the final image.

In his continued crusade to find anything wrong to nitpick that might shed positive light on anything related to Phase One, Fred has of course, glossed over relevant details...

I don't have time to go through each point, nor the patience any more, but here is one:

What makes a subject pop off an out of focus background (the "look" of shallow DOF shots) is not ONLY related to [Aperture + Angle-of-view]. If all you do is run a calculator you will NOT know how shallow DOF subjects render on any given lens+sensor combo looks.

A Phase One 150/2.8D is significantly sharper wide open than an 85/1.2 (I say this from a lot of experience with both lenses). Moreover the more the resolution the more the detail (assuming a sharp lens), and therefore the more that detail can contrast with an out of focus background. So with an IQ160 or IQ180 for example you have much more detail on the in-focus areas than with a 5D2. The rendering profiles of both lenses are also quite different and I find the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus to be much smoother with the 150/2.8 than with the 85/1.2 - BUT this is definitely a personal/aesthetic assessment so YMMV. The net result, in my eyes, from my shooting, is a significantly better ability to pop a subject matter off a background with shallow DOF when using a FF digital back and a 150/2.8 than a FF Canon with an 85/1.2.

Moreover the 85/1.2 has a lot of chromatic aberration in out of focus areas, which drives me crazy. I (personal feeling) think it makes it look far too digital and severely hampers my use of it wide-open.

Rather ironic that you choose to attack me on a point I made.. that of shallow depth of field.... when a photographer who shoots 30 weddings a year who owns both MF and 35mm digital confirms what I was saying.

Also your comment implying that "all I do is run a DOF calculator" is ridiculous. I have 30 years of experience and I only used those numbers to help explain the point.I also know the optical effect of many formats and also shoot from 24x36 to 8x10 film commercially.

I have two daughters and when they got married that was not even a consideration, compared to his eye, experience, people skills, sense of humor, work ethic etc.

I could not agree with you more. Hyper image quality is not a priority in event photography. Telling the story is and capturing the memories.What is important to keep in mind is that the image quality difference is between a current generation full frame Nikon vs a crop sensor MF is practically indistinguishable.

I shoot 20-30 weddings a year using Canon 1DX, 5D3's and Hasselblad H4D 40. While I get a slightly better file (after post processing) with the Hassy in perfect lighting condition, the negatives far out weight the positives. The H4D 40 is bulkier, AF is slower, and doesn't do well past ISO 800. Also I get significantly shallower depth of filed with my 50 and 85L's vs the Hasselblad HC 100 2.2 wide open.

Mind you the H4D-40 (like a P40+ et al) is a 1.3 crop from full frame, which limits your ability to shoot shallow depth of field.

Each tool has it's positives, negatives, abilities, and limitations.

RJ who wrote the article uses a crop sensor MF back. The IQ140. Same sized sensor as the H4D-40. Same effect on the depth of field.Also a full frame MF sensor is not going to that much better as far as shallow depth of field difference goes.... slightly better than a 1.3 crop 33x44

I could not agree with you more. Hyper image quality is not a priority in event photography. Telling the story is and capturing the memories.What is important to keep in mind is that the image quality difference is between a current generation full frame Nikon vs a crop sensor MF is practically indistinguishable.

Comparing a 1.4 Nikon or Canon DSLR lens with the same angle of view as a 2.8 lens on a crop sensor (44x33mm), the 1.4 Canon or Nikon lens will have shallower depth of field.

You may be comparing lenses that do not have the same angle of view. For example the angle of view of a 50mm Nikon on a full frame sensor is not the same as an 80mm Mamiya/Phase One on the IQ140that you use.

Their are no Hasselbld, Phase One or Mamiya lenses that will produce the same shallow depth of field and angle of viewcombination of the following on a Nikon or Canon full frame.

24mm 1.435mm 1.450mm 1.4 or 1.285mm 1.4 or 1.2200mm 2.0

The shallowest depth of field lens from Phase is the 150mm 2.8 D IF. Very nice lens.

Lets lok at the closest comparison that would be relevant.

85mm on Nikon/Canon vs Schneider 110mm 2.8 on a 33x44 sensor.

They have almost the same angle of view.

At two meters the Canon 85mm has the shallowest depth of field. 0.040mNikon 85mm 1.4 depth of field: 0.045m

The Schneider 110mm 2.8 with a 33x44 sensor depth of field 0.088m

Even on an IQ 180 the 110mm will still not have the shallower depth of field. 0.080m

Then there is the issue of shallow depth of field usability. The af systems in the latest Canon and Nikon cameras as well as live view make accurate ultra shallow depth of field focusing far more usable and accurate especially for off center compositions.

The king of shallow depth of field will be the new Leica with the Noctilux now that the Leica will have live view.

Another thing to be considered is using the method known as the Brenizer method.He uses this for ultra shallow depth of field shooting that also gives him huge file sizes.

Here is one:(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-eLfyS4T2D9Q/Tk6Ac7Cli7I/AAAAAAAAGMI/7O9-5HHfH3E/s1150/100904-175541+85mm_f1.4.JPG)

As you can see he uses it quite a bit at weddings.

You need a fast camera to use this technique. The result is quite beautiful.

Fred,

I appreciate your time and thought in assisting me with my blog post. Again, I share my thoughts and experiences only to help others through my eyes. I strive to do my research before I click publish, but I value accurate information relative to real-world application vs the abstract theoretical. I thank you for your input.

After all, we are human. And personally, I rely on intuition and practicality vs facts and figures when it comes to choosing the 'right' paint brush for me. After all, that the beauty of the artists' tools: what works for one won't always for another.

Your talking about shallow depth of field, but you post a photo that was taken at at least f8. Nice shot of your brother.

IF we are talking about new technology I would hardly call focus masking rocket science. First of all it will only confirm focus on high contrast features.Second it's after the fact.With a D800 and a few other DSLRs you can shoot in live view with an on Camera HDMI monitor with real time focus masking.There are even very integrated ones available.

Also on the D800 you can zoom in to a pre set magnification with one touch of a button.There is also an advanced face recognition review function that let's you zoom into faces and check focus as well as expressions.It even lets you rapidly go over many faces in a single shot.

http://youtu.be/yNajUFMpISs (http://youtu.be/yNajUFMpISs)

Thanks, Fred! I value your input. I've just found quite often that if I can keep it as simple as possible and in a glance determine my answer, I'll roll with it, especially in terms of determining critical focus in a single screen view.

I appreciate your time and thought in assisting me with my blog post. Again, I share my thoughts and experiences only to help others through my eyes. I strive to do my research before I click publish, but I value accurate information relative to real-world application vs the abstract theoretical. I thank you for your input.

After all, we are human. And personally, I rely on intuition and practicality vs facts and figures when it comes to choosing the 'right' paint brush for me. After all, that the beauty of the artists' tools: what works for one won't always for another.

Mind you the H4D-40 (like a P40+ et al) is a 1.3 crop from full frame, which limits your ability to shoot shallow depth of field.

Still, I agree with everything you say here (as applied generically to medium format). It is heavier, bulkier, and the AF is slower. I never shoot a wedding 100% medium format. I use each camera where it excels. Notably, with (more recent) Phase backs you can use Sensor+ for a very good ISO1600 and an ISO3200 that can make a beautiful Delta3200 film-like B+W image when grain and contrast is added. If I think I'll need f/2+ISO6400 in a wedding scene I reach for my Canon. In many/most situations I don't I reach for the Phase.

Each tool has it's positives, negatives, abilities, and limitations.

I couldn't agree more, Doug. Thank you for sharing your insight. And as you know, instinct and experience kicks in to inform the shooter which tools to use, when, and how. That's why it is an art :)

While I bet there are not a huge crowd of MF followers in this forum that make their living shooting medium format cameras at weddings, I'd thought I'd offer my perspective to this small, but influential group of followers of all things medium format.

Good news. The medium is alive and well. And it is a totally different crayon. And if I have a daughter. And if she is planning on getting married, I'd love to know that her chosen photographer is using the best tools available.

While I think I see somewhat more dimensionality and subtle tonal variations in your examples, I have not yet had a chance to see the results with comparable subject matter with the newest Nikons; though I suspect that it will always be the case that, the less you have to enlarge an image, the greater the tonal range and clarity will be. However, in practical terms, I think this will be much more important for large-scale display prints than for Web viewing or prints in an album. So, for the more formal portraits, I would say that medium format might be a distinct advantage, if the client wants large display prints. However, for the event itself, I think medium format puts you at an extreme disadvantage when trying to shoot more spontaneously and capture fleeting moments. Personally, I do not like the heavy flash look and generally more posed feel that seems typical of medium format event photography. But then Jeff Ascough is one of the people I admire when it comes to wedding photography, and that is a whole different thing altogether.

While I think I see somewhat more dimensionality and subtle tonal variations in your examples, I have not yet had a chance to see the results with comparable subject matter with the newest Nikons; though I suspect that it will always be the case that, the less you have to enlarge an image, the greater the tonal range and clarity will be. However, in practical terms, I think this will be much more important for large-scale display prints than for Web viewing or prints in an album. So, for the more formal portraits, I would say that medium format might be a distinct advantage, if the client wants large display prints. However, for the event itself, I think medium format puts you at an extreme disadvantage when trying to shoot more spontaneously and capture fleeting moments. Personally, I do not like the heavy flash look and generally more posed feel that seems typical of medium format event photography. But then Jeff Ascough is one of the people I admire when it comes to wedding photography, and that is a whole different thing altogether.

If you like Jeff Ascough's work you might like the Wright Brothers.... film wedding photographers. http://www.twinlenslife.com/

Regarding large printing.... you really have to go large to see the difference and even then it's not that much.

I am a photography studio owner. I use a Hasselblad H3D2-39 and four lenses, a Canon 5Dmk2 and four lenses, and a very recently added Fuji X-E1. When my daughter got married I specifically had photographers use 5Dmk2's. For ceremony we would have had to bring in plenty of studio strobe power to get the depth of field we'd need if using mf. That would have been distracting and take up floor space. The ability bump iso to 3200 and above is a world unknown to mf. Dof of 70-200 at 180mm at f2.8 at 10' is less than 2" and with 85mm at f1.8 at 7' is 2.5" (and my Hassie 100mm at f2.2 at 7' is 3", my HC150mm at f4 at 7' has dof of 3.4").

I recognize the superior files of mf at low iso compared to dslr. If I switch from looking at my mf files to my dslr files I think the dslr files look out of focus or soft. But in comparing prints for an album there is little difference.

Another issue is in back-up. If there's a failure with the MF digital, what's the likelihood that there's a second camera/back/lens other than the "technologically inferior" smaller format? With full-frame digital and for sure, DX digital, a competent photographer will have backups of body/lens/flash, etc. or he's probably a "friend with a nice camera".

When I shot 6x6 for weddings, I not only had backs and bodies for back-up but brought along the 35mm. Today, It's a minimum of three bodies, duplicate lenses/flashes and all sort of redundancies for me.

Bottom like, it's not how much technically the equipment is compared to something, it's the heart of the image and my vision that my clients hire me for and the craftsmanship of the final image.

There's no such thing as a tool "technically inferior." I'd rarely shoot ceremony moments with the medium format, same goes with toasts, or candids. Just too quick moments which I'd want to capture as part of the story of the day. It's not about "gear" at those moments, but "images" that matter most. Again, tools only serve the purpose of what they offer the user in final images. But that the end of the day I want to be a happy photographer as well has have giddy clients over their experience working with me. That is gold for me.

I agree to disagree. I've found my clients are not interested in side-by-side comparisons. In fact, if I ever showed them that in a client meeting, they'd probably look elsewhere.

A Mickey Mouse watch tells the same time as a Breitling. And a broken watch still tells the time correctly twice a day. At the end of the day, I'd rather clients know they are getting a Breitling on their wedding day than a Mickey Mouse watch, especially if I'm the timekeeper.

I agree to disagree. I've found my clients are not interested in side-by-side comparisons. In fact, if I ever showed them that in a client meeting, they'd probably look elsewhere.

A Mickey Mouse watch tells the same time as a Breitling. And a broken watch still tells the time correctly twice a day. At the end of the day, I'd rather clients know they are getting a Breitling on their wedding day than a Mickey Mouse watch, especially if I'm the timekeeper.

I linked to this comparison to reply to the large print issue. The comparison is to show that there is really no significant difference.

Regarding the Micky Mouse Breitling comparison you are making... no one is suggesting shooting with a Micky Mouse camera.

I think the compassion image I posted is quite relevant to what the client gets image quality wise. You are selling them images, not cameras.

From a sales point of view I can see how the appearance of a chunky MF camera can impress clients and you do a good jobof doing that with your blog. People do like to impress their guests with what they put on for their weddings. Big Limos and big cameras.Nothing wrong with that if it goes hand in hand with nice photography (as in your case :) )

What strikes me a bit is that the pictures using flash are quite a bit underexposed, at least on my screen. Also, flash illumination is uneven. It may be that just me.

Best regardsErik

It's quite subjective. I think RJ has good control over what he is doing, that is the look he is after and delivers it well. However I do agree with you that they are on the dark side. Some like it and some don't. It's subjective. Personally I'm not a big fan of such heavy use of overpowering the sun and prefer a more natural look and more of a bright white wedding look or moody black and white.

I really like what these guys in Hollywood are doing with old film cameras:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8288/7854551146_c23e3e6fd8_o.jpg)

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8446/7854541766_795a0437fc_o.jpg)

www.twinlenslife.com

They are very busy and I think their most expensive camera is a Polaroid frankenstiened into a 4x5.Most of what they shoot with can be bought for a couple of hundred dollars. A days stock of film is more expensive than their camera...

I don't think anyone would dispute that in the digital world probably 99% of weddings and events are shot with 35mm cameras.

In fact when I first started with digital, I learned more from wedding and event photographers than anyone because they work in the same workflow and speed I do when we shoot loose lifestyle projects and wedding guys/girls started digital earlier to keep the costs self contained.

In fact they started way before advertising and editorial photographers.

Still, there are photographers in every genre that use every format and do it well.

What I do take strong exception with is the absolute definitive view that a any 35mm cmos camera replaces any form of medium format.

I have owned at least a dozen cmos cameras and 5 ccd cameras and shot many side by side and I know that the ccd files work deeper and offer more possibilities.

Does that mean that my selection is right for everyone . . . No. Right for me . . . Yes.

Pixel count means nothing as long as their are not artifacts, what matters, especially when you go to post is the depth and sharpness of the file that a clean non aa filtered CCD provides. My little Leica M8 doesn't have near the file size of a most modern dslrs but the file works deeper and looks more detailed than cameras with twice the pixel count.

In regards to the image, of course that's important and every photographer has their reason for selecting a certain camera and lenses, film, sensors and post production software.

There is no right answer. Consequently there is no wrong camera.

But in regards to working under pressure which I assume most weddings and events come with a truck load of, I shot Ronaldinho in Barcelona, 14 set ups, multiple monitors, many multiple client suggestions from 20 plus clients, two sets and 90% with a p30+.

This image was shot in 4 frames and was featured in CA magazine's photo annual. It may not be outside lifestyle, it may not be for emotion only, but the pressure more or equals a wedding shoot (which I have great respect for), the thought process to block the shot happened in minutes.(http://russellrutherford.com/ronnie_ca_winner.jpg)

This session of Asafa Powell in Kingstonwas scheduled for 8 hours and a lot of set ups. Instead of 8 hours we had him for 2. We worked so fast the assistants are holding the lights because we didn't have time to set up stands and two grip trucks were in the background.

So we shot background plates to blend out the crew. Used a Contax and Aptus 22.(http://russellrutherford.com/Asafa_Powell_by_Russell_Rutherford.jpg)

Now this last image is of Sanya Richards shot with a Nikon D3, 300 mm 2.8 at 2.8. We had one opportunity to get this image, planned the shot and angle two days before her run, and honestly this was a heart stopping shoot.

Would I have shot this medium format . . . NO . . . but every situation requires a different set of equipment. Then again I doubt if a D800 Nikon could have shot this at 12 FPS in available darkness. Maybe, haven't tried one yet.(http://russellrutherford.com/SANYA_200M.jpg)

But this shot of Sanya with a p30+ was for a different look, different time.(http://russellrutherford.com/sanya_p30.jpg)

Now I'm not trying to prove this is an apples to apples comparison just wanted to show what worked under extreme pressure.

If one system did everything for me, heck I'd own it.

Now the funny thing is the night I shot the B+W of Sanya there was a Japanese photographer working with a Nikon d1 or d2, or some old digital Nikon. So old that the black was worn off it.I saw him upload his image to wirelessly transmit and they were stunning. Earlier that night I saw a photographer with an H system, 4 assistants with wireless flash and just working away.I didn't see his images, but he knew his stuff.

In fact they started way before advertising and editorial photographers.

Scanning back cameras were used in advertising photography waaaaaaaay before that.

Not to dismiss your point, just say'n.

There are people that choose the right tool for the job because they can discern the difference. And there are people that can't see a difference even if their life depended on it. Given a general decrease in required quality on the information-consumption-side, it stands to reason that more production will take place with cheaper tools of lower quality, which probably equates to 35mm mainstream tools.

information-consumption-side = general public reading glossies, but also art-directors commissioning work. If you have 30+ years of photography experience and you have to work for a smart-phone-generation-art-director, then good luck explaining the necessity of the quality difference...

Scanning back cameras were used in advertising photography waaaaaaaay before that.

Not to dismiss your point, just say'n.

There are people that choose the right tool for the job because they can discern the difference. And there are people that can't see a difference even if their life depended on it. Given a general decrease in required quality on the information-consumption-side, it stands to reason that more production will take place with cheaper tools of lower quality, which probably equates to 35mm mainstream tools.

information-consumption-side = general public reading glossies, but also art-directors commissioning work. If you have 30+ years of photography experience and you have to work for a smart-phone-generation-art-director, then good luck explaining the necessity of the quality difference...

Your right. My best friend was shooting beautiful food photography of the world's most renowned chefs in digital with a light phase before I knew digital capture was real.

I've heard about the end of this industry since I started and I've heard about the good ol' days, just as long.

Truth is the good ol' days weren't that good and imagery of all kinds will always be needed to move any brand or service in world wide comemrce.

In regards to explaining how you produce a project to an AD (I'm not talking about cameras, I mean the whole process), if they don't care then they're not paying anything anyway and honestly no pay doesn't get a lot of attention, unless it's pro bono or fun and even fun costs money.

Lowering the bar doesn't move an industry. (and once again I'm not talking about cameras, just the whole process).

It doesn't have anything to do with age. I work for 24 year olds, and 64 year olds. I've never noticed any difference if they're talented, except the "smart phone generation" wants to do large production and move their careers ahead just like any generation has and will continue to do so.

It may be done differently, actually it is, but it will be done differently in a dozen years also.

Your company makes software for Iphones and that's great because that's just another tool in the bag to do something different.

That's my point. The goal isn't for the whole world to put a 24-70 on a 6d. They can but after a while that gets a little boring.

The goal is use whatever works and is unique for you.

I don't care if a beautiful image comes from a pin hole camera, a cell phone or a 80mpx back. I don't care if a talented director has a dp shoot his movie with a go pro as long as it's interesting.

Good is good, but the thing is most images for commerce require production.

We've all seen cutbacks in the last few years, but our studio has also seen gains, it depends on the client, the project, the importance.

A client can cut back anything and will as long as your willing. The best way to stay ahead is to stay professional and that covers a lot of territory.

The samples that "Bcooter" shows really impress me. I don't think that the use of Canon, RED or Contax/Phase makes his photography successfull. What makes him a successfull photographer is the vision and the workmanship. I guess that he takes the tool needed for the job.

The images are stunning, but they would be stunning whatever equipment he would use. I bet he would make excellent images with iPhone!

It's all about vision, styling, workmanship and all the photoshop work behind. Bcooter says the MF files are better. But not even an IQ 180 would turn a boring image into a masterspiece.

I don't think anyone would dispute that in the digital world probably 99% of weddings and events are shot with 35mm cameras.

In fact when I first started with digital, I learned more from wedding and event photographers than anyone because they work in the same workflow and speed I do when we shoot loose lifestyle projects and wedding guys/girls started digital earlier to keep the costs self contained.

In fact they started way before advertising and editorial photographers.

Still, there are photographers in every genre that use every format and do it well.

What I do take strong exception with is the absolute definitive view that a any 35mm cmos camera replaces any form of medium format.

I have owned at least a dozen cmos cameras and 5 ccd cameras and shot many side by side and I know that the ccd files work deeper and offer more possibilities.

Does that mean that my selection is right for everyone . . . No. Right for me . . . Yes.

Pixel count means nothing as long as their are not artifacts, what matters, especially when you go to post is the depth and sharpness of the file that a clean non aa filtered CCD provides. My little Leica M8 doesn't have near the file size of a most modern dslrs but the file works deeper and looks more detailed than cameras with twice the pixel count.

In regards to the image, of course that's important and every photographer has their reason for selecting a certain camera and lenses, film, sensors and post production software.

There is no right answer. Consequently there is no wrong camera.

But in regards to working under pressure which I assume most weddings and events come with a truck load of, I shot Ronaldinho in Barcelona, 14 set ups, multiple monitors, many multiple client suggestions from 20 plus clients, two sets and 90% with a p30+.

This image was shot in 4 frames and was featured in CA magazine's photo annual. It may not be outside lifestyle, it may not be for emotion only, but the pressure more or equals a wedding shoot (which I have great respect for), the thought process to block the shot happened in minutes.(http://russellrutherford.com/ronnie_ca_winner.jpg)

This session of Asafa Powell in Kingstonwas scheduled for 8 hours and a lot of set ups. Instead of 8 hours we had him for 2. We worked so fast the assistants are holding the lights because we didn't have time to set up stands and two grip trucks were in the background.

So we shot background plates to blend out the crew. Used a Contax and Aptus 22.(http://russellrutherford.com/Asafa_Powell_by_Russell_Rutherford.jpg)

Now this last image is of Sanya Richards shot with a Nikon D3, 300 mm 2.8 at 2.8. We had one opportunity to get this image, planned the shot and angle two days before her run, and honestly this was a heart stopping shoot.

Would I have shot this medium format . . . NO . . . but every situation requires a different set of equipment. Then again I doubt if a D800 Nikon could have shot this at 12 FPS in available darkness. Maybe, haven't tried one yet.(http://russellrutherford.com/SANYA_200M.jpg)

But this shot of Sanya with a p30+ was for a different look, different time.(http://russellrutherford.com/sanya_p30.jpg)

Now I'm not trying to prove this is an apples to apples comparison just wanted to show what worked under extreme pressure.

If one system did everything for me, heck I'd own it.

Now the funny thing is the night I shot the B+W of Sanya there was a Japanese photographer working with a Nikon d1 or d2, or some old digital Nikon. So old that the black was worn off it.I saw him upload his image to wirelessly transmit and they were stunning. Earlier that night I saw a photographer with an H system, 4 assistants with wireless flash and just working away.I didn't see his images, but he knew his stuff.

A client can cut back anything and will as long as your willing. The best way to stay ahead is to stay professional and that covers a lot of territory.

Agreed. What do you think about the number of high-quality professional photographers in the industry? Will that number remain more-or less equal, decrease, or perhaps even increase?

I also wondered about this: Sometimes I watch a movie and in the movie the main character will somehow find him/herself in a scene reminiscing his/her wedding while watching video tapes or even 8mm tapes. Both of these have a specific look which "dates" the event. I believe that may be a big part in taking someone back to that event or memory. So if you would give all of your assistants a smart-phone and have them film a wedding event, and you then cut it into a reasonable movie in post, would that also exhibit a particular look that we will become to appreciate in 20 years time, when looking back at the event and the footage with that particular look of the era?

The samples that "Bcooter" shows really impress me. I don't think that the use of Canon, RED or Contax/Phase makes his photography successfull. What makes him a successfull photographer is the vision and the workmanship. I guess that he takes the tool needed for the job.

The images are stunning, but they would be stunning whatever equipment he would use. I bet he would make excellent images with iPhone!

It's all about vision, styling, workmanship and all the photoshop work behind. Bcooter says the MF files are better. But not even an IQ 180 would turn a boring image into a masterspiece.

Best regardsErik

+1

And what makes BC different than some other folks here is that he USES the tools and he's not scared of stretching their envelopes even when there's a big cheque on the table.

He's owned and used those two poor P+ backs and Contaxes forever and has shot a gazillion frames with them in all sorts of conditions and on REAL jobs. I don't know anyone else who uses an M8 commercially and very few shoot stills with a RED successfully

There is a HUGE difference between that and buying some used kit on the Bay, fuffing about with it for 7 weeks, 700 frames (and raving about it) and selling it on for a profit.

That is also why I liked RJ's article: He's got a toolbox which he's happy with, he appreciates the virtues of using the 2 different formats and he knows their limitations. It also seems like his clients are happy with the service he provides!

"We worked so fast the assistants are holding the lights because we didn't have time to set up stands and two grip trucks were in the background"

Your productions are often like that (from what I glean from your wonderful imagery and posts) but how do you operate when it's just you and whatever you can fit into that shoulder bag that you have to carry around all day from morning until night? Not every photographer has a grip truck and minions running around after them and the budget to allow that.

I see a lot of sense in both FBG's posts and those of the vested interests of the dealers/reps but any decent photographer follows the mantra of Ron Dennis of McLaren F1 fame "use the right equipment, and use it the right way"

Cost can also have a bearing on that, be it the cost of time, job budget or the acceptable cost of equipment offset against profits of the business.

The idea of weddings breaks me out in a cold sweat, mainly for the horror of dealing with the expectations of a visually unaware public and my precious summer weekends not belonging to me. But I know what tool I would reach for if I had to shoot from morning to evening in rapidly changing light/environments.

And what makes BC different than some other folks here is that he USES the tools and he's not scared of stretching their envelopes even when there's a big cheque on the table.

He's owned and used those two poor P+ backs and Contaxes forever and has shot a gazillion frames with them in all sorts of conditions and on REAL jobs. I don't know anyone else who uses an M8 commercially and very few shoot stills with a RED successfully

There is a HUGE difference between that and buying some used kit on the Bay, fuffing about with it for 7 weeks, 700 frames (and raving about it) and selling it on for a profit.

That is also why I liked RJ's article: He's got a toolbox which he's happy with, he appreciates the virtues of using the 2 different formats and he knows their limitations. It also seems like his clients are happy with the service he provides!

Your productions are often like that (from what I glean from your wonderful imagery and posts) but how do you operate when it's just you and whatever you can fit into that shoulder bag that you have to carry around all day from morning until night? Not every photographer has a grip truck and minions running around after them and the budget to allow that.

I can't count the number of times I've gone to the beach and had the talent dress behind a long piece of canvas we hold up to shield her/him/both.

Editorial, Personal work, some budget restricted work we do small crew.

Not just me and a camera, but me, 1 assistant, my producer that does makeup and one hair artist.

That is some of the best work we do,I don't shoot a million files and I don't have twenty people giving out opinions. That's the way this type of work goes.

(http://spotsinthebox.com/be_brave_sm.jpg)

If commerced worked this way, that's fine by me, but it usually doesn't.

I also don't believe in false economy. If your working in commerce and your working fast and detailed, it does the photographer no good to be digging around in a case looking for a lense or changing cf cards while the world passes by.

If you don't have the people that can fix a collar, or add a big ass white card for fill, then your probably going to miss something.

You also don't get anywhere by getting a cheap assistant, beating the heck out of him/her making him/her do the job of 4 people and then expect great results.

The photographer that makes it is the one that offers more. Period.

____________________

This camera talk is silly. Anybody can use what they want, but if anyone thinks that they can show up with a cell phone, flip flops, a smile and make big money, either they got the gig from their Uncle at Publicis, or they live off a trust fund.

These are tough times and clients are demanding. You either work harder, offer more or you don't exist. You better know this biz top to bottom, work professionally, run servers, be there for your clients, produce perfectly, don't underpay, don't overpay and do it with a semi smile.

Sure they're some cheap cats out there that will do it for less, but that's always been the case, they're always has been somebody cheaper but the way you separate yourself from the commodity brigade is do it better, do it right, do it with no excuses.

Cheap cats have problems. They don't carry insurance, they don't have the proper equipment, or they spend days borrowing, they don't have a reputation with their suppliers that will save them if the job goes sideways because of weather, they don't deliver day and night, they' usually have an excuse.

I have clients that go to cheap cats and they usually come back.

Last year we had the budget pulled out of a gig and I had to pare down crew. I carried as much stuff as anyone, and we worked day and night, no overtime, no complaints, no problems, other than we were beat down tired. Then again, the client came back with more money on the next gig, so life goes on.____________________

I got a ton of cameras and use them all. I don't care what camera anyone uses. That BS to think that my way is the only way.

Still and I'm serious about this.

I tire of the constant beat down of one format, specifically one brand because somebody's got a H**d on.

I tire of the scream about good dealers that aren't getting rich and work damn hard for every client they have. They serve a purpose and I'm not going to try to explain it to anyone who doesn't understand why they're needed.

I also tire of the whoa is me, the world's coming to the end talk so let's all shoot with a cell phone and instigram it or hey I got it, I'll buy cheap plastic cameras and shoot film that looks like instigram.

If you want to be a facebook photographer then fine, but I don't get it.

While I discussed my thoughts on the article (some backed up by other posters here, including a wedding photographer that owns both MF and a 35mm DSLR) RJ is doing his thing and well, I think that the most important point he makes is that the DF with leaf shutter lens is nice and simple to use with flash used to kill sunlight.

The main advantage being that he can use small flash without loss of power and with slightly easier exposure determination thatdoing the same thing with a 35mm DSLR and strobes.

However there are still some technical aspects of using 1/1600th sync with an LS lens that need to be considered.You need to have a flash that has a short duration in order to not lose power. There are many strobes out there that have longer duration, but plenty with short durations too.

What this means for RJ's shooting is that by using flash power efficiently he is getting good flash recycle timesand all the flash power is contributing to his exposure. A reading from a hand held flash meter capable of combining flash and daylight will give himan accurate reading without compensation for flash power loss.

That said the same thing can be achieved using more flash power and a strobe that has a long enough flash durationto work with Canon or Nikons FP flash mode.

There are also new strobes coming out that support both Nikon and Canons high speed flash mode that their speed lights use.

The featurelist is impressive, The flash power with HSS mode is 50% as high as with normal Mode 1 setting, the powerconsumption is only marginally higher.

The new HSS8000 has HSS support and uses some fancy electronics to avoid losing much power even at sync speeds of up to 1/8000th

BH will also be selling this under their own brand too.

I think we will see similar offerings from other vendors too.

Adding HSS support to Strobes is a very interesting move. More efficient than using classic slower duration strobes to cover the full shutter swipe over the sensor.

Doing what can be done with Phase Ones leaf shutters with a 35mm DSLR will be one step simpler with these HSS strobes.

What these HSS strobes are doing is acting as high power out put HMI movie lights, but for very short durations. About 1/250th of a second.Long enough for the Nikon or Canon shutter to complete the focal plane shutter speeds of over 1/500th to 1/8000th.

"Not just me and a camera"So not really a comparison to how a lot of wedding photographers work, and you are right that to produce your images you wouldn't want to compromise on anything (be it decent lunch or a bit of kit) that affects the quality of your shoot.

This was shot in a restaurant of a sound studio building because there wasn't enough room in the studio itself, it had black walls and was very dimly lit, just the light of the battery powered elinchrom. Tiny crew, no time (20mins) and constantly changing situation. I shot an ex presidents wife and the man that owns half the worlds advertising/media industry plus a few other notables for this campaign. Would have loved to shoot MF but it's too slow, too inflexible. Would have been fine in a proper studio with a half day on each shot but that was never going to happen. The client was very happy, they wouldn't have been any more or less happy whatever i had shot on but the logistics meant that I wouldn't take a p455dIII 100mm macro elinchrom ranger quadra lighting(not got the original finals so this from a media news website, talent is Labrinth a musician/producer who today's youth know about ::) )(http://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleWidth/460/?sURL=http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/News/OMC/6AC8D848-F8CD-9692-8AE97BEFB3D0F6F7.jpg)

"Not just me and a camera"So not really a comparison to how a lot of wedding photographers work, and you are right that to produce your images you wouldn't want to compromise on anything (be it decent lunch or a bit of kit) that affects the quality of your shoot.

This was shot in a restaurant of a sound studio building because there wasn't enough room in the studio itself, it had black walls and was very dimly lit, just the light of the battery powered elinchrom. Tiny crew, no time (20mins) and constantly changing situation. I shot an ex presidents wife and the man that owns half the worlds advertising/media industry plus a few other notables for this campaign. Would have loved to shoot MF but it's too slow, too inflexible. Would have been fine in a proper studio with a half day on each shot but that was never going to happen. The client was very happy, they wouldn't have been any more or less happy whatever i had shot on but the logistics meant that I wouldn't take a p455dIII 100mm macro elinchrom ranger quadra lighting(not got the original finals so this from a media news website, talent is Labrinth a musician/producer who today's youth know about ::) )(http://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleWidth/460/?sURL=http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/News/OMC/6AC8D848-F8CD-9692-8AE97BEFB3D0F6F7.jpg)

Hey ... the not so young ones know him too. He is brilliant and he makes great use of visuals.It must have been a treat to work with him. Great shot... I like the way you "shot his thoughts more than his appearance"

Have owned one version or the other forever. For their size and costs their amazing little strobes.

We just shot a lifestyle project and one of the days was in the Santa Monica park on Ocean at Montana. It was a week of rain and the day we shot the park scenes is was almost black out.

We mounted an Quantum on a long air stand and the assistant ran behind the talent about 30 degrees behind and the the thing looked like daylight. Honestly, it was amazing how much it kicked out and we kicked light back with white boards and it saved the shot. (I'd show the images but their under embargo).

I originally bought a quantum for a studio light and if you really want an interesting look, use a quantum with no diffusion with an assistant holding the head on a stand somewhere close to the lens, maybe above maybe off axis. Direct the assistant to follow the talent. It's a beautiful light.

I don't use small speedlights much, but did on this shot and the prop lights are the lighting source. When I though this up and never thought it would work without a supplemental key, but a few power corrections and I think we hit this on the fifth or sixth frame.

Not used a quantum for a long time but I'm impressed with the elinchrom ranger quadras now they have a lithium battery, wish the led modelling bulb was higher power so you could use them for filmingYour comment is appreciated BC / FBGG, I have a great out-take portrait of Martin Sorell but can't show that yet.

We shoot there every month at minimum, because it's close to our studio and projects are time compressed. Also WR is easier to permit if you have badges and an account with Film LA.

We use to work Port Hueneme on longer projects, but it's expensive and consuming because legally you need a Ranger which adds to the cost and complexity as depending on the Park Ranger there are a lot of areas they won't let you work on.

Personally I like Zuma, but it also is more expensive than WR and takes another 30/45 minutes to get there.

WR is easy, the only issue is it's booked in advance by a lot of production companies.

Another good spot is 5th street just north of Oxnard. There are dunes with reed type grass. Rather unusual for Socal.A bit far though. A little furthur up there is Emma Wood where there is a very nice dense and resilient ice plant, railway and nice natural river rock areas.Emma Wood also has a nice park area for setup etc.

Also you might like this website for Arial views of the whole of the California Coastline.

Regarding Port Hueneme... just a heads up that there is a very nasty superfund toxic site about 1/2 or a mile or there abouts south of the Pier.There is also a pretty looking lagoon there and wild looking dunes and drift wood..... one would not think it's so badly contaminated.

1. Savor the ‘look.’Lots of people say their system has a special look that can't be described. Right. They can't objectively quantify it, but somehow there's a "duende" that makes it special. That "soul" is called the "placebo effect". Take a double blind test between systems X and Y, say 50 samples of image pairs from either (X,X), (X,Y), or (Y,Y): how many folks can actually get a statistically significant accurate rate of distinction? I'm talking current sensor tech, not an IQ180 vs some 10-year-older 6mp 35mm sensor. With the exif stripped out, of course.

2. Use 1/1600 flash syncReally? First of all, just to be pedantic, faster sync speed doesn't make your lights "like 4 times powerful". It lets you drop ambient, sure. But it's also very easy to drop ambient by a 2 or 3 stops (hell even with speedlights) with bog-standard 1/200. More realistically, how often do you shoot outdoor weddings in high noon where the bride wants the ceremony photos to look like they took place at night on a new moon?

3. Thinking long-term with an open-source systemThis has NOTHING TO DO WITH WEDDINGS. So how is it an advantage for wedding photography???

4. Edit with 16 bit depth per color channelYeah, except that 2 of those bits are, you know, under the noise floor.

5. Relish the shooting experienceThat's fine for you. Does it matter to the bride what your shutter sounds like? Maybe it does. What happens when she says "your shutter sounds so puny compared to a pentax67"? Or "why is that camera so small compared to the 8x10 our other photographer used"?

7. Touch the screen, pleaseHey, if you're able to determine that you generate more business because you're able to impress clients by scrolling through photos using gestures rather than pushing a button (which is objectively a FASTER action),more power to you.

8. Embrace smarter technologyExcept focus peaking doesn't work in the 4fps "live view" for IQ backs. And if you're not applying focus peaking to 100% magnified playback, it's not really "critical" focus now is it. What's the point of 80MP when focus peaking is only calculated at lower resolution?

9. Don’t forget old school lensesNot only does this have NOTHING TO DO WITH WEDDINGS, but pretty much EVERY digital system can use "old school lenses", especially Medium format ones. So how is this an advantage of MFDB for wedding photography???

10. Shallow Depth of FieldNo, there's NOT a ton of math. It's bad enough that authors like to beat readers with the math stick in peer reviewed white papers. It's just silly for someone to try and pretend to beat the reader with math skills he doesn't even have. Also, you're wrong. You will easily get shallower DOF on 35mm than you can on 2.8 MF lenses for equivalent FOV.

11. Optimal ISOWhat are you even talking about? Dropping the ISO drops the strobe too. It doesn't give your strobe more power. It doesn't give your strobe more power relative to ambient. It just drops EVERYTHING by a stop. Also, now you're saying that the advantage of a MFDB over a DSLR is that the MFDB can shoot in hardware binning mode so that the files can be small...(like a DSLR)...? Huh? Might need to work on your logic.

Your port is nice. However, one thing that was conspicuous was that you are mainly a posed portrait shooter. I don't recall noticing any candids (prep, ceremony, reception, etc). Those are MAJOR parts of shooting weddings, and are domains in which DSLRs (with ISO, AF, and frame rate advantages) thoroughly trounce MFDBs.

Also, here is the google cached version of the OP's article. Just a personal peeve about folks drumming up site traffic using articles containing limited content.http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cache:PQ4zU-5mJbMJ:http://www.kern-photo.com/2013/01/shooting-digital-medium-format-in-wedding-photography-2/%2Bhttp://www.kern-photo.com/2013/01/shooting-digital-medium-format-in-wedding-photography-2/&gbv=1&sei=HCj6UIjGFKrKiALJr4GIAQ&ct=clnk

My guess that anyone can work with the equipment they happen to comfortable with. The question if the larger format gives commercial benefits is really one between the client and the photographer.

Now, if you try to describe your subject perception in objective terms the result can be a bit contrieved.

Some points:

1) Usually a silent shutter is preferable to a loud one, I find it odd that that someone prefers a noisy shutter.

2) Regarding the advantage of leaf shutters I would essentially agree with the original poster. Fast sync is an advantage of leaf shutters. It seems that short exposure times are possible on FP shutters with certain units, but I cannot see that usage would not limit guide number. Personally, I find this tendency to "overpower sun" just ugly, but that is a personal preference, if it sells, just fine. Some of the examples "Bcooter" has posted really show expert usage of outdoor flash.

3) The talk about editing 16 bit files is just stupid. Whenever I open a raw image I work with 16 bit files. Neither Lightroom nor Photoshop has 10, 12 or 14 bit files. Once you open a raw image it will be a 16-bit (or rather 15-bit) file, unless forced into 8 bits.

4) I am not convinced of the utility of peaking. I have peaking on my Sony Alphas and I got peaking well outside what I would call good focus. I also checked focus mask in Capture One, and older version and I wouldn't say it detected exact focus. As I don't have tested Phase One IQ backs I cannot say, but I'm somewhat skeptical.

5) Regarding shallow depth, I think there is something to it. But, that is not really about MF but about focal length and aperture. If you need a relative wide angle of view you can shoot with a say 80 mm lens on MF and use f/2.8. On 135 you would probably need a 50 mm lens at f/2 and many of those lenses have a lot longitudinal chromatic aberration (magenta/green edges). But for really shallow focus you would shoot a 300/2.8 at full aperture, those lenses are sharp. But, I guess the 300/2.8 is not a wedding lens?

6) Regarding old school lenses, I would suggest that mirrorless cameras are most flexible in that area, but you can put most MF lenses on any DSLR. I have a tilt adapter for my Alpha that I can use with Hasselblad lenses, another one for old Pentacon/Kiev lenses and I have an adapter for Pentax 67 lenses stuck in customs. The sample picture in the original posting has the poorest bokeh I have seen this side of a mirror lens.

An observation is that author compares a Nikon D700 with an IQ 140. The D700 is essentially a low resolution semipro camera oriented at high ISO, while the IQ 140 is a pro camera oriented at low ISO. Comparing MFD with Nikon D600/D800 or Sony Alpha 99 would be much more relevant.

1. Savor the ‘look.’Lots of people say their system has a special look that can't be described. Right. They can't objectively quantify it, but somehow there's a "duende" that makes it special. That "soul" is called the "placebo effect". Take a double blind test between systems X and Y, say 50 samples of image pairs from either (X,X), (X,Y), or (Y,Y): how many folks can actually get a statistically significant accurate rate of distinction? I'm talking current sensor tech, not an IQ180 vs some 10-year-older 6mp 35mm sensor. With the exif stripped out, of course.

2. Use 1/1600 flash syncReally? First of all, just to be pedantic, faster sync speed doesn't make your lights "like 4 times powerful". It lets you drop ambient, sure. But it's also very easy to drop ambient by a 2 or 3 stops (hell even with speedlights) with bog-standard 1/200. More realistically, how often do you shoot outdoor weddings in high noon where the bride wants the ceremony photos to look like they took place at night on a new moon?

3. Thinking long-term with an open-source systemThis has NOTHING TO DO WITH WEDDINGS. So how is it an advantage for wedding photography???

4. Edit with 16 bit depth per color channelYeah, except that 2 of those bits are, you know, under the noise floor.

5. Relish the shooting experienceThat's fine for you. Does it matter to the bride what your shutter sounds like? Maybe it does. What happens when she says "your shutter sounds so puny compared to a pentax67"? Or "why is that camera so small compared to the 8x10 our other photographer used"?

7. Touch the screen, pleaseHey, if you're able to determine that you generate more business because you're able to impress clients by scrolling through photos using gestures rather than pushing a button (which is objectively a FASTER action),more power to you.

8. Embrace smarter technologyExcept focus peaking doesn't work in the 4fps "live view" for IQ backs. And if you're not applying focus peaking to 100% magnified playback, it's not really "critical" focus now is it. What's the point of 80MP when focus peaking is only calculated at lower resolution?

9. Don’t forget old school lensesNot only does this have NOTHING TO DO WITH WEDDINGS, but pretty much EVERY digital system can use "old school lenses", especially Medium format ones. So how is this an advantage of MFDB for wedding photography???

10. Shallow Depth of FieldNo, there's NOT a ton of math. It's bad enough that authors like to beat readers with the math stick in peer reviewed white papers. It's just silly for someone to try and pretend to beat the reader with math skills he doesn't even have. Also, you're wrong. You will easily get shallower DOF on 35mm than you can on 2.8 MF lenses for equivalent FOV.

11. Optimal ISOWhat are you even talking about? Dropping the ISO drops the strobe too. It doesn't give your strobe more power. It doesn't give your strobe more power relative to ambient. It just drops EVERYTHING by a stop. Also, now you're saying that the advantage of a MFDB over a DSLR is that the MFDB can shoot in hardware binning mode so that the files can be small...(like a DSLR)...? Huh? Might need to work on your logic.

Your port is nice. However, one thing that was conspicuous was that you are mainly a posed portrait shooter. I don't recall noticing any candids (prep, ceremony, reception, etc). Those are MAJOR parts of shooting weddings, and are domains in which DSLRs (with ISO, AF, and frame rate advantages) thoroughly trounce MFDBs.

Also, here is the google cached version of the OP's article. Just a personal peeve about folks drumming up site traffic using articles containing limited content.http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cache:PQ4zU-5mJbMJ:http://www.kern-photo.com/2013/01/shooting-digital-medium-format-in-wedding-photography-2/%2Bhttp://www.kern-photo.com/2013/01/shooting-digital-medium-format-in-wedding-photography-2/&gbv=1&sei=HCj6UIjGFKrKiALJr4GIAQ&ct=clnk

An observation is that author compares a Nikon D700 with an IQ 140. The D700 is essentially a low resolution semipro camera oriented at high ISO, while the IQ 140 is a pro camera oriented at low ISO. Comparing MFD with Nikon D600/D800 or Sony Alpha 99 would be much more relevant.Best regardsErik

Not to mention that the D700 is discontinued and not based on current Sony/Nikon sensors.It's also worth noting that the new generation 40mp and 60mp Phase One backs use the same sensors as their older P series backs.

In a similar time frame Nikon went from 12MP (D700) with AA filter to 36MP (d800 and d800e) with and without AA filter in one generation.

Canon went from the 5d II to the 5d III. MP stayed pretty much the same (still a good 20+ megapixels), but went from a modest 9 focus points to 61 focus points. Phase one is still stuck with poorly defined 3 focus points that are in the center of the screen. Substantially very little change from the DF to the DF+.

This is SOOOO True! I am curious how many brides will notice the medium format look...:) They couldn't care less. Canon and Nikon rules....!!!

Haring

Damn... you can really tell the story well. Brilliant portfolio. Very emotional, many touching moments and while the tones are rich the images have a natural feel to them.I think your work is a very good example of how the speed and agility of the cameras you use free you up to capture the story and move around capturing your interesting anglesand moments.

The images that your clients will notice the difference in quality (using a MFDB) is with bridal portraits, and selected wall portrait enlargements.

No one ever said when you shoot with a MFDB that you have to abandon other tools in your bag. As a photographer (yes, I photograph weddings) I actually use three different camera formats, and different lighting options as well. I simply pick the best tool (camera) for my wedding client that will best help me create the best image. My Phase MFDB, Canon DSLR, and an IR converted camera work well together.

Your clients don't necessarily need to know the effort you go through in capturing different images, but often it does show. And sometimes it's enough to simply have that personal satisfaction. That's what's important is making that image, with tools that I personally select. These rants in their various forms against medium format digital are worthless and old. I'd rather read about others using different tools in the profession, even if those tools aren't the right ones for me professionally. You just might learn something. What a concept.

Damn... you can really tell the story well. Brilliant portfolio. Very emotional, many touching moments and while the tones are rich the images have a natural feel to them.I think your work is a very good example of how the speed and agility of the cameras you use free you up to capture the story and bolt around capturing your interesting anglesand moments.

I don't do weddings, personally or professionally, but this is what an "old "p21+ sensor looks like at iso 400, hand held on a wobbly bed, shot focus and recompose.

I profoto 400 watt hmi, bounced to wall for fill.

Shot, I dunno in about 5 or 10 minutes.

80mm lens. F. 2.8 something, 400 iso, 125th second.

(http://spotsinthebox.com/salon_mag_800px.jpg)

I also don't like pixel staring, but for once here goes, this is a screen grab at 100% from a cmyk file.

100% (http://spotsinthebox.com/salon_mag_100.jpg)

I bet the "not old" mfd backs and lenses look pretty good too.

I'm sure someone won't agree, but hey, the internets free.

IMO

BC

P.S. A non paid endorsement, no agenda except I'd like to get a deal with Contax to update my lenses. I know there has to be leaf shutters for them somewhere and if they're not too expensive I might rent one or two.

P.S. A non paid endorsement, no agenda except I'd like to get a deal with Contax to update my lenses. I know there has to be leaf shutters for them somewhere and if they're not too expensive I might rent one or two.

Ask them for the special ones with the programmable MTF curves where you draw a red circle on the model's eye and the lens automatically deforms and the camera will beep once that eye is at at least 180 lp/mm

Note that it has to be a RED circle! If you pick another colour some very strange things can happen!

You don't shoot weddings do you Fred? You don't print large wall portraits yourself do you Fred? Not that I'd give a f**k if you did....the point being from my post is that a MFDB is simply a tool, and you're not foreclosed from using any other camera/equipment alongside when shooting a wedding. Professional photographers can and do use different cameras/equipment to create images---their own vision. A good photographer can and does use different cameras and can create great imagery. So post some images if you have them from your old P25+ that you had for a few months.

We get you don't like medium format digital. Ad nauseum. Get over it. If you're happy with using the D800, goody for you. It's a great DSLR. But the hasty generalizations, constant posting of the same images, the same charts, the google searches, and the same rants are seriously old. It really detracts from the quality of this forum. Instead of insights into medium format digital "__________," it seems every thread initiated here quickly becomes a witch-hunt against Phase One and negative medium format digital ramblings. Helpful? Not in the least.

B&G is Bride and Groom, sorry I'm used to wedding forums and forgot that not everyone speaks our strange language :D

Not having a DSLR vs MFDB fight here but would like to address a few issues so that those interested in wedding photography may have some balance.

Here are 4 setups from a total of 19 from a recent wedding. Seriously humid, I couldn't see much through my glasses, was kinda shooting based on experience cause I couldn't see much :D. The first photograph of the session has a metadata time of 9:31pm and the last at 9:45pm and the wedding planner was hurrying us the entire time, no kidding! All shot at iso 1600 and f2.8 (I think) using Canon Wireless ETTL and a 1:8 ratio within the ETTL system using two speedlites in a brolly off camera held by an assistant and on camera fill. No time for manual flash, test shots, tripod, multiple strobes, etc. Couldn't have begun to do this with our DF, heck it wouldn't have managed the focus, the aperture, the handheld shutter speeds, the high ISO or the wireless TTL flash with ratios. Did I mention that I was using a canon 5Dc bought 7 years ago?

(http://www.studio-beni.net/0714.jpg)

(http://www.studio-beni.net/0712.jpg)

(http://www.studio-beni.net/0721.jpg)

(http://www.studio-beni.net/0717.jpg)

For this kind of photography medium format digital is just not at all possible. If you have time and the ability to use the necessary lighting and most of all clients who buy into the static portraiture look then you could use MFDB's but then I would seriously question whether the MFDB could possibly be economically viable for all the very highest end shooters. The difference in IQ is unlikely in 99.9% of the cases to bring in a difference in income equal not only the cost difference of the MF gear but also the need for working in a MF way, the higher end lighting, etc, etc. I would also seriously question whether most clients would be able to see said difference in IQ, from ten years of shooting weddings I highly doubt it.

I'm also rather nervous about putting all the horses into the 'kill ambient with heavy flash' look for weddings. From what I can see in the market that ship has already sailed and the look like so very many others is now something that many consider passée. It's still big in the advertising/fashion world but far less so now for the wedding market. Whether I am right or wrong re the market, I have little doubt that in time it will be passée leaving couples with a style which is no longer in fashion. IMO a very dangerous type of photographic style for a wedding photographer to invest an entire career into which is what they would be doing if they invest to this extent.

I'm now out of the wedding game, my legs have given up on me for good, however I'm wary of photographers marrying a look to the extent of having to invest these kind of amounts, I'm extremely wary of a look which may require extrememly questionable business investments and I know that for most photographers MF is not going to be fluid or broad enough as a tool and that for most clients it would be a waste of money.

For those who can and do make it work I have the utmost respect. I do believe however that it is so niche a requirement that the number of said people will never be more than a very few. All the photographers I know using MFDB for weddings did not buy the camera for wedding work, it's a commercial shooting rig that they are bringing along to the gig.

not a wedding photographer but i know enough that you can't cover a wedding with just a MFD if you need to do the informal shooting from bright sunshine to candle-lit church, you could use both but not having an 1600/3200iso camera that will focus in the near dark is putting yourself at a disadvantage. great to shoot your 'hero' shots and the big group outside with a bigger camera but i personally wouldn't want to rock up without a quality DSLR that i could grab and capture that once in a lifetime memory.

You don't shoot weddings do you Fred? You don't print large wall portraits yourself do you Fred? Not that I'd give a f**k if you did....

When faced with a simple side by side image that shows comparable image quality the response is a personal attackand four letter words.....

Regarding wall portraits... and printing them. Well I am a portrait photographer. A-List clients. And as far as printing them big I think it would be safe to say I have gone bigger than you might imagine. Canon IFP 8100. Its a 44 inch printer and I print large to very large on a regular basis.

While I have shot only a few real wedding I shot for many years for the biggest wedding and bridal magazinein Italy. I shot quite a few stories that were mock wedding in a similar time frame as a wedding. I also gave workshops when I had the time and to many weddingphotographers. In particular the portrait part.

Your clients don't necessarily need to know the effort you go through in capturing different images, but often it does show. And sometimes it's enough to simply have that personal satisfaction.

I would not say that it's enough have "that personal satisfaction". However I do agree that using a tool that personally satisfies you and inspires you to do a better job can be a good thing If you feel more inspired when you pick up your MF camera and you find that it gets you goingthat is fine.

However that is quite different from letting that enthusiasm and gear infatuation spill over into spill over into rather unfounded technical articles, especially considering the amount of money involved and how challenging the market is.

My point is to share my experience on how the tremendous advancement in less expensive cameras have made it possibleto produce outstanding quality with far more agile and accessible equipment.

Readers of these discussions can take a look at the portfolios of those that took part.They can take the information shared and go and make their own choices.

Some photographers feel threatened by the "democratization" of image quality.

The reason Fred reposts the same images is in part that there are few valid comparison images available. You really need two well executed images shot of the same subjects under identical conditions. Here are two sets:

The first set illustrate the resolution advantage of IQ180 over Nikon D800E (Left: Phase One, Right: Nikon D800E)(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/McCalmont_upsize.jpg)

The second one compares Phase One IQ180 and Nikon D800E for shadow detail:(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/CaptureOne/Capture1_brightened.jpg)

All the above images were published with kind permission of their copyright owners, Marc McCalmont and Tim Ashley in this article of mine: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts

You don't shoot weddings do you Fred? You don't print large wall portraits yourself do you Fred? Not that I'd give a f**k if you did....the point being from my post is that a MFDB is simply a tool, and you're not foreclosed from using any other camera/equipment alongside when shooting a wedding. Professional photographers can and do use different cameras/equipment to create images---their own vision. A good photographer can and does use different cameras and can create great imagery. So post some images if you have them from your old P25+ that you had for a few months.

We get you don't like medium format digital. Ad nauseum. Get over it. If you're happy with using the D800, goody for you. It's a great DSLR. But the hasty generalizations, constant posting of the same images, the same charts, the google searches, and the same rants are seriously old. It really detracts from the quality of this forum. Instead of insights into medium format digital "__________," it seems every thread initiated here quickly becomes a witch-hunt against Phase One and negative medium format digital ramblings. Helpful? Not in the least.

À propos of not much at all, were I given the choice to shoot for Condé Nast's Sposabella or to cover the highest of high society wedding, I'd take the magazine any and every day, regardless of the financial rewards from the real wedding.

One would be fun, and the other (for me) would represent a friggin' nightmare and huge sense of betrayal of why I became a photographer. I'm odd that way.

À propos of not much at all, were I given the choice to shoot for Condé Nast's Sposabella or to cover the highest of high society wedding, I'd take the magazine any and every day, regardless of the financial rewards from the real wedding.

One would be fun, and the other (for me) would represent a friggin' nightmare and huge sense of betrayal of why I became a photographer. I'm odd that way.

You don't shoot weddings do you Fred? You don't print large wall portraits yourself do you Fred? Not that I'd give a f**k if you did....the point being from my post is that a MFDB is simply a tool, and you're not foreclosed from using any other camera/equipment alongside when shooting a wedding. Professional photographers can and do use different cameras/equipment to create images---their own vision. A good photographer can and does use different cameras and can create great imagery. So post some images if you have them from your old P25+ that you had for a few months.

We get you don't like medium format digital. Ad nauseum. Get over it. If you're happy with using the D800, goody for you. It's a great DSLR. But the hasty generalizations, constant posting of the same images, the same charts, the google searches, and the same rants are seriously old. It really detracts from the quality of this forum. Instead of insights into medium format digital "__________," it seems every thread initiated here quickly becomes a witch-hunt against Phase One and negative medium format digital ramblings. Helpful? Not in the least.

::)

I wouldn't be surprised if other people are just as fed up with dealers circling around forums like vultures and seemingly treating every new post on pretty much any subject as a sales opportunity, diving straight in with "Whilst you may be asking questions regarding <insert pretty much any kit here>, perhaps you might also want to consider <insert kit the dealer sells here> and the benefits a dealer can bring. Oh, and by the way, as you'll see from my signature, I just might be able to help you out with that!". Followed up with copious quantities of FUD to try to deter a potential punter from ever even consider buying MF kit from anyone other than a dealer.

Perhaps if those dealers weren't so damn pushy all the time, Fred wouldn't feel obliged to constantly remind people there are other options out there?

I'll say one thing for him though - he could certainly teach a few around here a thing or two about manners and common decency.

"I wouldn't be surprised if other people are just as fed up with dealers circling around forums like vultures and seemingly treating every new post on......."

Actually Gerald. You seem to forget that the dealers on this forum are also accomplished photographers. They are not used car dealers. They are resources who will gladly share information on a wide range of gear (not only what they sale). I can guarantee that many professionals on this site have picked up the phone and asked technical questions on a project from the dealers. As matter of fact I recently photographed Steve Harvey (An American comic and actor) for a magazine cover. This was great, however the magazine gave me the assignment with only 48 hours notice. That may seem like a lot of time. But not when you have have a gold throne constructed and put together a team to do the shoot. Dave. G. fedexed me in Miami at 110 mm (rental) LS which I needed. It's called teamwork.

So what if they want to sale a lens or body or whatever. That's what they do.

Yes FRED does provide other options. And he's entitled to his opinions.

But if you are working professional who has to produce consistent quality on time or a weekend warrior (with 48 hours to produce some beautiful Ansel Adamest images) you may want to listen to other positive, inspirational voices on LL.

"I wouldn't be surprised if other people are just as fed up with dealers circling around forums like vultures and seemingly treating every new post on......."

Actually Gerald. You seem to forget that the dealers on this forum are also accomplished photographers. They are not used car dealers. They are resources who will gladly share information on a wide range of gear (not only what they sale). I can guarantee that many professionals on this site have picked up the phone and asked technical questions on a project from the dealers. As matter of fact I recently photographed Steve Harvey (An American comic and actor) for a magazine cover. This was great, however the magazine gave me the assignment with only 48 hours notice. That may seem like a lot of time. But not when you have have a gold throne constructed and put together a team to do the shoot. Dave. G. fedexed me in Miami at 110 mm (rental) LS which I needed. It's called teamwork.

So what if they want to sale a lens or body or whatever. That's what they do.

Yes FRED does provide other options. And he's entitled to his opinions.

But if you are working professional who has to produce consistent quality on time or a weekend warrior (with 48 hours to produce some beautiful Ansel Adamest images) you may want to listen to other positive, inspirational voices on LL.

Thank you,Jeffery Salter

Hi Jeffery -

Actually, I haven't forgotten a thing. But moving swiftly on from the condescension...

I'm not doubting much of what you say, but I've seen far more examples of amazing work from Fred than I have from all the dealers combined. I've also seen a pretty diverse set of opinions from Fred on various bits of digital MF gear - when something is good, he doesn't hold back from praising it. Sure, he goes on a bit about stuff he doesn't like, and perhaps could be accused of pushing the D800 argument a little strongly at times, but I think we're mostly all adults here who are more than capable of making informed decisions from the wide range of opinions on the forum (and elsewhere).

Obviously a great relationship with a dealer who is willing to fedex them a lens on a free loaner for a couple of days is a good thing to have. I'm not challenging that. Heck, I've had a manufacturer fedex me $20K's worth of kit halfway around the world to use for a couple of months, and I'm not even a professional photographer! So I understand at first hand the value such relationships can have.

Dealers are dealers they have products to sell and need to put food on the table just like photographers, though ultimately that's why they are here. photographers however are not here to sell (unless its the classifieds) and I trust the opinion on usability of a piece of kit from a working photographer and by that I mean people who have the client there wanting to see something they like ASAP not a fine art weekend warrior playing with MF kit shooting badly composed landscapes and their grandkids.

Actually, I haven't forgotten a thing. But moving swiftly on from the condescension...[/quote]

Hi Gerald,

No condescension meant. I do not receive free equipment or Loaners from any Phase one dealer. I pay as I go. They have mortgages to pay as well. And I really like having them around. I own or rent my gear on a per project basis.

Yes. I agree there are many sources on the web. I'm a bit partial to LULU because it reminds me of when you would drop off film to your lab and bump into another photographer judging a clip over a light table. It's was a great place to trade notes on shooting or photography war stories. As I said Fred is entitled to his opinions.

Actually, I haven't forgotten a thing. But moving swiftly on from the condescension...

Hi Gerald,

No condescension meant. I do not receive free equipment or Loaners from any Phase one dealer. I pay as I go. They have mortgages to pay as well. And I really like having them around. I own or rent my gear on a per project basis.

Yes. I agree there are many sources on the web. I'm a bit partial to LULU because it reminds me of when you would drop off film to your lab and bump into another photographer judging a clip over a light table. It's was a great place to trade notes on shooting or photography war stories. As I said Fred is entitled to his opinions.

Thank you,Jeffery

Forgive me on two counts of misunderstanding, but have to admit to being somewhat confused regarding the second.

I thought you were lauding the relationship with your dealer because he'd come to the rescue and sent out a lens to you at his expense, maybe to cover a problem with one you already owned or something like that.

But this was just a regular rental then? I genuinely don't get it - this kind of service is something that you'd need a "relationship" with a dealer in order to benefit from? It just sounds like a normal transaction to me, or am I missing something?

With regards LULA, yes - it is a great community. I think we need to keep these little tiffs that occur in perspective. At the end of the day, it's only gear. But in such circumstances, I think the community would be far better off if everyone stuck to arguments - however heated - about the gear itself, rather than stoop to personal attacks.

Can you call B&H at 6 a.m. and get a technical question answered? It seems to me that having a relationship with dealer gives infinitely more value then the rental fee of (1) lens. Stuff happens on location. Cameras get dropped...I don't see B&H. Tracking down a courier to deliver replacement gear. Assistants blow-up packs. Laptops crash. You have never had any situations in which you called for support? I'm extremely confidant that the phase dealers I work with would go above and beyond to help me. Not sure about Adorama or E-bay or B&H. Just saying....

Of course excellent relationships have a positive effect on your business.

Photographers that treat their suppliers and crew well get better performance and I don't know what you shoot, or your business model, but having a deep list of good suppliers that will search for some esoteric piece of equipment, or give you a pre heads up about a new firmware or equipment change can save you a ton of time.

Also it's nice to work with people you can count on.

I work with dealers and rental companies around the world and until you've a bad one, you can't really appreciate a good one.

In regards to the dealers on this forum it's obvious they want to sell equipment and put it in it's best light. There is no hidden agenda on this.

Then again, of the few dealers and reps that participate, I've seen them help more non clients than clients, so I believe anyone that labels them as vultures is mistaken.

In regards to the person that posts about the d800 I think it's fine though it seems to be the same song over and over, regardless of the topic which gives the impression that there's an agenda cooking.

Maybe because he didn't have the positive experience he was hoping for from his 645 camera and back.

I could be wrong, but some of this I just don't get. If I was a meticulous as this poster professes to be, before I bought something as expensive as a medium format system I would have tested it in the exact conditions I work.

By the time I wrote the check there would be few surprises and if there were I can promise you the dealers on this forum will make it right.

This is why you want a good dealer relationship, because before the point of purchase they will make sure to get the right equipment in your hands to test to your hearts content.

As long as your serious about buying from them.

After the point of purchase they'll do there best to support you.

And BTW: Photographers can be dicks. Don't think any of these dealers or reps have it easy and roll in the jack, because it's not that way.

I'd have to grow twenty hands to count the times i've seen photographers bug a dealer to death, ask a trillion questions, test everything on the shelf, then when it comes time to write the check they search the Bay or some going out of business dealer and buy from them, all to save $400.

The crazy ass thing is if the equipment goes south, they call the original dealers that they drove nuts and start screaming about why don't you get this fixed?

There also the same photographers that scream the loudest when their clients go to some cheap guy that offers more volume and less service, though they think it's fine when they do the same.

I'd say it's perfectly OK to buy from B&H or Amazon if you think you know what you are doing, but once you are out of warranty or you don't know what you are doing a dealer may be nice to have around. The dealers need to make some money by offering their services, I'd suggest it is a reasonable proposal.

On the other hand some things may stink. If you cannot ship a broken back to an authorized service by UPS, Fedex or whatever without involving a dealer, it stinks. If you cannot use your choice of raw converter with a back, it stinks. Leading software should be supported by all backs. Photographers should own their own images.

My preferred raw tool is Lightroom, and it works with raw files from Hassy, Phase, Pentax and Leica S2, so I don't need to complain. But I'm under the impression that the other main raw converter is Capture one, I don't know if C1 can be used with files from Hasselblad and Pentax 645D.

I'm pretty sure that Capture Integration or Digital Transitions (?) offer excellent services. They seem to be great companies.

Of course excellent relationships have a positive effect on your business.

Photographers that treat their suppliers and crew well get better performance and I don't know what you shoot, or your business model, but having a deep list of good suppliers that will search for some esoteric piece of equipment, or give you a pre heads up about a new firmware or equipment change can save you a ton of time.

Also it's nice to work with people you can count on.

I work with dealers and rental companies around the world and until you've a bad one, you can't really appreciate a good one.

In regards to the dealers on this forum it's obvious they want to sell equipment and put it in it's best light. There is no hidden agenda on this.

Then again, of the few dealers and reps that participate, I've seen them help more non clients than clients, so I believe anyone that labels them as vultures is mistaken.

In regards to the person that posts about the d800 I think it's fine though it seems to be the same song over and over, regardless of the topic which gives the impression that there's an agenda cooking.

Maybe because he didn't have the positive experience he was hoping for from his 645 camera and back.

I could be wrong, but some of this I just don't get. If I was a meticulous as this poster professes to be, before I bought something as expensive as a medium format system I would have tested it in the exact conditions I work.

By the time I wrote the check there would be few surprises and if there were I can promise you the dealers on this forum will make it right.

This is why you want a good dealer relationship, because before the point of purchase they will make sure to get the right equipment in your hands to test to your hearts content.

As long as your serious about buying from them.

After the point of purchase they'll do there best to support you.

And BTW: Photographers can be dicks. Don't think any of these dealers or reps have it easy and roll in the jack, because it's not that way.

I'd have to grow twenty hands to count the times i've seen photographers bug a dealer to death, ask a trillion questions, test everything on the shelf, then when it comes time to write the check they search the Bay or some going out of business dealer and buy from them, all to save $400.

The crazy ass thing is if the equipment goes south, they call the original dealers that they drove nuts and start screaming about why don't you get this fixed?

There also the same photographers that scream the loudest when their clients go to some cheap guy that offers more volume and less service, though they think it's fine when they do the same.

Fred likes to entertain - and not long ago we heard the same song and dance from Fred about 35mm DSLR:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=823993

So his experience wasn't all bad :)

As for the dealers, I met Doug at PhotoExpo in NYC last year. Super nice guy, extremely knowledgeable and passionate about everything photography and definitely NOT a vulture; his attitude alone would be reason enough for me to do business with him.

Of course excellent relationships have a positive effect on your business.

In regards to the person that posts about the d800 I think it's fine though it seems to be the same song over and over, regardless of the topic which gives the impression that there's an agenda cooking.

Maybe because he didn't have the positive experience he was hoping for from his 645 camera and back.

I could be wrong, but some of this I just don't get. If I was a meticulous as this poster professes to be, before I bought something as expensive as a medium format system I would have tested it in the exact conditions I work.

By the time I wrote the check there would be few surprises and if there were I can promise you the dealers on this forum will make it right.

Fred likes to entertain - and not long ago we heard the same song and dance from Fred about 35mm DSLR:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=823993

So his experience wasn't all bad :)

Wow you certainly did some digging! Putting a lot of effort into discrediting me huh..... but you should have looked at the date If you look at the date the D800 was not shipping or had just started to. My post was based on the official sample images.That were really quite bad (technically). Here is one of the official images.

Flat greyish skin tones, kind of flat darks in the hair. Hardly what one would expect to be compared to MFD.However it turns out that the shot was technically crap... just look at the levels.....

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8488/8248645894_28bd30a8b7_b.jpg)

These bad levels would kill the dynamic range of any camera.

Right after I received some good files from a friend that had received one of the early D800 cameras I posted about what I saw.Correctly exposed and processed files showed remarkable results. Having seen those files I bought the cameraand actually switched 35mm system as a result.

But thanks for posting the link. It clearly demonstrates that I did not start with a negative view of medium format digitaland that it is new advancements in 35mm camera and lens designs combined with the instability of MFD that changed my mind.

Nothing shot as stable, error free, tethered and to cf cards, with the stability of the Phase backs.

I've shot the Phase backs with about every kind of Mac, back to the White 27" I-macs to the next to latest Imacs, to G5's and Intel towers, three versions of 17" powerbooks up to the latest thunderbolt 17".

Early on had a few (by few I mean like three or four) problems due to some new but faulty firewire cords and had to learn to monitor the Contax battery use.

C-1 Version three was almost crash proof, V4 early on had teething problems, but now is a rock, after that .............

Nothing, Nada, not one brand or format did better than the Phase.

Do you run clean computers, new firewire cords, backups on everything, fresh or new secondary drives, max ram, modern graphics cards. Are your computers clean, your cf cards formatted and dedicated to the specific cameras, fresh batteries, clean contacts?

Did you personally know the software inside and out and/or have a dedicated tech?

In a very heavy day of shooting, I might have one slowdown/freeze a day with the Phase 99.9% of the time it's low batteries on the camera. With our Canons and Nikons I average 2 freezes a day with DPP, or Nikon Capture or C-1.

If I watch the Contax batteries I'm shocked if we have any slowdown in a week's heavy production.

Nothing shot as stable, error free, tethered and to cf cards, with the stability of the Phase backs.

I've shot the Phase backs with about every kind of Mac, back to the White 27" I-macs to the next to latest Imacs, to G5's and Intel towers, three versions of 17" powerbooks up to the latest thunderbolt 17".

Early on had a few (by few I mean like three or four) problems due to some new but faulty firewire cords and had to learn to monitor the Contax battery use.

C-1 Version three was almost crash proof, V4 early on had teething problems, but now is a rock, after that .............

Nothing, Nada, not one brand or format did better than the Phase.

Do you run clean computers, new firewire cords, backups on everything, fresh or new secondary drives, max ram, modern graphics cards. Are your computers clean, your cf cards formatted and dedicated to the specific cameras, fresh batteries, clean contacts?

Did you personally know the software inside and out and/or have a dedicated tech?

In a very heavy day of shooting, I might have one slowdown/freeze a day with the Phase 99.9% of the time it's low batteries on the camera. With our Canons and Nikons I average 2 freezes a day with DPP, or Nikon Capture or C-1.

If I watch the Contax batteries I'm shocked if we have any slowdown in a week's heavy production.

So what were your problems?

IMO

BC

You don't have to cut me some slack because I love my Nikon.I don't love cameras. I love my wife, my kids and my dogs.

My Nikon are just wonderful tools sort of like my carbon fiber hand made surfboards. Tools that I have fun with.I love kitesurfing huge waves, but I don't "love" my kitesurfing surfboards. I chose to ditch one at sea so I could go and rescuea completed stranger out in the surf. I love humans and animals. I love my life. Cameras are tools. Some are really goodand make my life easier and help me make the picture I like making.

But back to the subject at hand... I'm not even referring to software or tethering stability and you know that perfectly well.You know perfectly well what issue I had with the DF as I have responded to you before on this issue. ::)I'm talking about the DF and DF with grip freezing up and locking. I'm talking about camera stability.I'm definitely not the only person to have had such problems.

You don't even use the DF. You use an OLD Contax system with a phase back.

I also used the my Phase One back with the Fuji GX680 and it worked flawlessly. Only very occasional problem if tethered.

Here are many other's that have these pain in the ass lockup / freeze problems and jammed shutters.

Here are some examples so please don't go making unfounded accusations of Bull Shit Mr Cooter or Russell.Feel free to tell me that your Contax works like a charm with your phase one back, but do not accuse me of bull shittingregarding the issue of Phase One camera stability.

As you can see from all of these there are plenty of others with similar problems.

Quote

by joshshinner » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:43 am

Just wondering how many other people were experiencing lock up problems?

Locking up being where you press to release the shutter and the camera just freezes and locks up, and in order to get going again you have to either switch it off and on again, or remove the battery and drain power completely. It's annoying in a normal shoot, however if you have the camera locked off (ie for car photography) and you have to get the battery out, it is a complete nightmare. Especially seeing as the battery release on the V Grip is terrible and doesn't pop the battery out, so you either have to use a magnet to get it out, or tip the camera!

This happens mainly in mirror up mode, however it does also happen on single and continuous modes. We've been telling Phase about this for almost 2 years and they still haven't solved it with new firmware.

firmware on camera is 1.25 and we're using an IQ180.

Quote

by AnGy » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:23 pm

Same problem here.645 DF was used with a P40+ and now with an IQ180 and locks up sometimes one time over 10 actuations sometimes over 3 or 5 actuations. Update of firmware to version 1.2.5 did not change anything.

Quote

joshshinner » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:47 am

Hey Drew,

So still no firmware or any sight of anything to fix the immensely irritating lock up problems.... It has been over 2 years and it is mind blowing that Phase have not addressed this issue. And please don't say we haven't said anything about it, Phase were first made aware of our issues regarding this well over 18 months ago and we have been promised a fix with every new firmware, yet alas no fix. The cameras have also been back for repair in that time.

Please tell me when this is going to be sorted?

Not impressed. Still.

Quote

John232 » Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:17 am

My Phase One DF locks up randomly as well. The camera focuses and functions fine, but pressing the shutter button does nothing. Usually it does this for a just a frame or two about every 25-50 shots. I thought the issue might be a specific lens, but it does it with all my lenses ("D" versions, LS versions and 645 manual lenses). So I am ruling out lenses as the culprit. About 2 weeks ago the camera just refused to shoot and the batteries had to come out of the camera and back. That has never happened before.

I think the issue might be the automatic switching between LS and FP, or something to do when the camera and/or back to come out of their power save modes, or it might be the orientation sensor - the problem seems to happen more frequently when shooting upwards (such as shooting a skyline or tree canopy immediately above me). Right now there are too many variables and the problem is too random for me to lay out a specific cause-effect sequence. The DF has firmware 1.25 and the P65+ has firmware 5.2.2. The most worrisome part is a random centerfold issue with the P65. I am pretty sure the shot (file) following lock-up has centerfold.

I've reach out to my Phase dealer, hopefully he'll have some helpful feedback. My gut feeling is that there is something amuck with the DF body.

Quote

joshshinner » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:01 am

John232 wrote:Right now there are too many variables and the problem is too random for me to lay out a specific cause-effect sequence.

I must say John, this is the most to the point and accurate review of the phase one camera, and it's exactly what I say to anyone asking me about it. And I completely feel your frustration... when something goes wrong, to start with it could be one of a dozen things, which when working under time pressure is beyond irritating. Hope you get your problem fixed....

Quote

by NNN634255317662300975 » Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:15 pm

Same here.The shutter (in my LS lenses?) sticks shut at the rate of about 1 in 10 shots.Actually I just sent my body in and the shutter was replaced. But I'm still having the same problem.

Quote

by NN891992 » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:24 pm

Hi there

is anyone still having a problem with this

both my iq160 and p30+ on 2 different DF bodies and using different computers on capture one 6.4 and 7.01 shoot occasional frames at a recorded f1

usually happens 1 frame in 100 sometimes a few frames in a row

can happen after a pause or during continuos shooting

body and back firmware up to date

any ideas at all , hyper annoying when working with directing talent into a position.

I am having trouble with leaf shutter lenses. The camera is not using the shutter speed when leaf shutter lens is on the front of camera. camera OK with normal lenses.It overexposes to the point where it is white.

I am trying to update firmware to latest version to see if firmware?software has been corrupted.I have taken batteries out and reset camera to factrory settings.

Cant run FWupdater error message DLL required to run is missing.

Quote

by HEIKO121 » Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:59 am

Hello Drew,Since you lovked the discussion about jamming 80 mm lensesI had to open a new one. Yes I sold my Phase One equipment. It is not possible to work with it professionaly, as long as you do not take two lenses of the same kind with you.And regarding to the repair of the 80 mm lens I have tto tell that it dorsn't work after the repair. This causes me so much hassle and stress again cause i probably have to take it back. You claim that you can't help any further because I sold it, but perhaps you can tell me and the rest of the community how such help could look like? Perhaps I send you the still not working lens so you can prove yourself that I'm not telling ****** here and prove that phase One offers some service at least?Kind regardsHEIKO HELLWIG

Quote

by NN8850041 » Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:11 am

I am onto my third 80mm LS Schneider lens.

This weekend the shutter blades jammed closed and my camera was unusable.This is the third lens of the same model to do this.Phase One have replaced my lens every time but I am beginning to lose complete faith in the camera system?I am shooting in the Maldives early March and I can't afford to have my kit breaking down or out of action.

The digital technician operating my camera and I were both at a loss to explain why the kit was breaking down so consistently.

I am interested to hear from Phase One or anyone with similar experiences?thanksAntonyhttp://www.antonynobilo.com

Quote

by NN163027UL » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:31 pm

I had the same issue 2 weeks into the new lens. The dealer replaced the lens no questions asked but amazingly annoying. Now that new lens doesn't auto focus to infiniti. Need to bring it in to be fixed. WTF?!

Quote

by NNN634255317662300975 » Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:07 pm

I have had very similar problems lately.During my last job, the shutter in the df body destroyed itselt while shooting.I rented a second body. Then the shutters in both my LS80mm and LS110mm would stick shut like once in 10 shots.They make a strange noise and then open back up. This went on during the whole shoot.Both the body and the lenses were one and a half months out of warranty.I sent the body in for repair and the shutter in the body was replaced at full charge.When I asked about the lenses, phase one's answer was I would have had to pay €350 for them to look at them, with no guarantee that they would find a fix. In which case the shutters would be replaced at full charge.

That's about the worse service I've ever received in my life. And I'm stuck with two time bombs in my bag.

Anyone else have this problem?

Quote

by NN159009UL4 » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:15 am

The shutter on my DF body stuck closed after only 2500 cycles. It has been sent in for repair but frankly, I am hesitant to make any further additions to this system. My scheduled purchase of the 110 LS is on indefinite hold as I have again been forced to regress to my 1Ds III to complete an upcoming job. If P1 wants to survive upcoming Japanese competition they should take notice, provide excellent customer support and and meet any responsibility arising from their own manufacturing deficiency.

Quote

by HEIKO121 » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:57 pm

You claim that the leaf shutter will work over 100000 actuations and do not repair mine after only 4000?kind of ridiculous isn´t it? And regarding to my new Nikon, there is a much bigger variety of lenses that you can carry with you and they do not cost a fortune. On top they do not cost fortunes for repairing them. And they do not sell me "Schneider" lenses made in Japan.

Quote

by klabton » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:40 am

History of my 80 LS lens..- repair after +/- 4k shoots (warranty)- locked again and replaced for a new one. (warranty)- shutter replace ( paid ) about year ago.- and the last one, lens locked. Today should arrive... (paid)

(twice repaired shutter in body, once digital back)I have this gear 2,5 years.....

I don't think, this lens has capacity to take 100k shoots. I don't even use leaf shutter. But still this lens locks after less than 20000 shots...

I realize that, after all, the best solution for tethered shooting in studio. Much, much better service than Hass... Shooting in studio with D800 tethered is a little bit annoying...

Technical issues with Phase One equipment reported/discussed on the Phase One forum designed for the reporting/discussion of technical issues. News at 11 (http://m.urbandictionary.com/#define?term=news%20at%2011).

Shall we go to the Nikon forum, Adobe forum, Apple forum and see if any one is reporting technical issues?

Technical issues with Phase One equipment reported/discussed on the Phase One forum designed for the reporting/discussion of technical issues. News at 11 (http://m.urbandictionary.com/#define?term=news%20at%2011).

Shall we go to the Nikon forum, Adobe forum, Apple forum and see if any one is reporting technical issues?

You can try to write this issue off with another sarcastic post. However I think that other can see that there is a level of complaints and dissatisfactionthat is not what one would expect for extremely expensive equipment.

Quote from: FredBGG on January 22, 2013, 07:40:26 PM......snip........combined with the instability of MFD that changed my mind.

I shot twenty magazine covers last year with my P40+ with DF body. Not one single problem.

I'm based in Miami, Florida and we have about seven professional rental equipment studios. They all rent Phase one backs. Photographers from all over the world shoot here. Some shooting for high end magazines like Vogue, others doing catalogue work. And guess what they use Phase one backs.

Jesus, you guys should have been in my boarding school if you even remotely consider Fred a bully. Get real, or does the new reality mean that everybody has to sing the same communal song 24/24? I'd rather hear different songs, even if some make me switch off or simply switch channels at times...

Jesus, you guys should have been in my boarding school if you even remotely consider Fred a bully. Get real, or does the new reality mean that everybody has to sing the same communal song 24/24? I'd rather hear different songs, even if some make me switch off or simply switch channels at times...

Quote from: FredBGG on January 22, 2013, 07:40:26 PM......snip........combined with the instability of MFD that changed my mind.

I shot twenty magazine covers last year with my P40+ with DF body. Not one single problem.

........Thank you,Jeffery

Nice to hear yours is working fine for you. As you can see from my previous post I am not the only one to have had stability problems.

It's a known issue that the DF has stability issues... not all of them or and not in everyone's situations.

I think a good indication of this is the Press release Phase One sent out when the DF+ was announced

Quote

The Phase One 645DF+ builds on the success of previous generations of the camera and has undergone a complete overhaul of all moving parts to produce a camera with the highest uptime in the market of high-end photography.

A complete overhaul of all moving parts. Well something was obviously wrong and needed fixing. Hopefully this will change things for those that had problems.

Now I agree this seems to happen more than any of us care to see and that goes for any OEM. I did not post Leica, Sony , Hassy and others but there always seems to be some bug or issue that crops up. Now as far as Phase yes I agree the DF had a power issue and it affected a good number of users even myself it happened to me in the beginning but like anything else you find workarounds and through a lot of folks trying diffrent things a switch in batteries helped a great deal, than like anyone else in the photo world a firmware fix addressed it as well. For most of us these things worked very well and some users maybe many never had any issues. What helped a lot of used was the ability to work with there dealers for any help needed in getting to a fix, repair and even replacements. Buy used and frankly your on your own just like buying a used Nikon or Canon. But dealers in 35mm are not like MF dealers at all and this needs to be clear. We had a workshop attendee on location have a complete DF failure , one phone call and a new body was in his hands by 10 am. Lets be really honest here shit happens and Murphy's law is ever present and I don't care what name is on the faceplate. My D800 failed twice for no reason. Pulled battery and turned it back on just like when I had my Phase DF. No difference same deal I could not shoot. I'm not dismissing the DF issue at all but on the same hand I'm not dismissing the left AF issue with my Nikons. Sorry to say but with electronics this crap just happens , do you know a PC that never needed a reboot. Even the Mac diehards can't say they never had reboot or see the grey screen of death. I know I have. LOL

Unfortunately and I even hate to say this but the truth is with electronics this is becoming the norm and not the exception. Folks this is digital it has a lot of pluses for us but we all know it has its downside as well. It's tougher to shoot , you now are the processing engine and frankly maybe more work than we shot film all for the convienance of instant results. Good , bad or indifferent this is the digital age and this is our norm. The real trick or hope as users is these OEMs recognize there issues and make a effort to correct it, repair it, upgrade it or replace it. First they need to acknowledge it and start working on it and if they don't than they would be what we would call incompetent I would not consider any of these companies incompetent as they all took some measures to make things right. My Leica M8 two of them to be exact spent months and I mean months in Solms trying to figure out the sudden death syndrome they had. Luckily they gave me loaners just imagine as a Pro losing two bodies without backups for months on end . Not a good situation and one major reason when I went to MF from the M8 in full capacity as a replacement I went through a dealer to do that. I value there service as they have provided useful help over the years in MF and also a close friendship which leads to a relationship that you can count on when you lens, back or body decide it does not want to go to work that day . Like I said in the world of electronics you need to protect yourself from the new normal of products that are not exactly ready sometimes.

Now on to wedding work with MF. I don't do a lot of it but have used both together and each system on its own. Now lets face it 35mm is a little easier to deal with but seriously I never found MF that hard to deal with even under the pressure of shooting a gig in fast order. Honestly I never ran into a problem shooting MF where I mumbled to myself I wish I was shooting 35mm right now. Maybe it's me but I found shooting MF itself as a camera pretty easy. The biggest issue that always is a thought is more about DOF and making sure you can carry focus through a image. To me that is the biggest limitation if there is one and it happens in all types of shooting even in landscape work is carrying DOF. We all know the smaller the format the given extra DOF given the same aperture, its the one plus 35 has over MF. Now a lot of this depends on your thoughts on DOF to begin with and your expectations given the shooting gig. But I don't agree with you can't do weddings with MF. I never found there is much I can't do with any cam , its just a matter of your determination of getting something done and working within the limitations and knowing your work arounds and how your going to accomplish your task. Obviously there was a time when almost a huge population of wedding shooters shot MF film and they got along just fine. Does shooting MF digital pose maybe a change in how you go about your work over 35mm than sure I would agree, you certainly have to think more and different of how to get things done. Nothing wrong with thinking and working hard to get the shots you need, as a Pro doing weddings lets face it that is why your getting paid.

These two Canon and Nikon issues you are referring to are from the very beginning of the production and very different to the DF issues.

The Nikon problem was at the beginning of the production cycle of a totally new camera system. Not to mention this camera came out right after Nikon was recovering from the devastation it's factories suffered in both the earthquake/tsunami and the floods in Thailand.

The problem with the left AF sensor on the Nikon D800/D800E is well known. I got the impression that is quite frequent. Personally I don't use neither Nikon nor Canon and I don't shoot weddings. I'm essentially a landscape shooter. Regarding AF, I simply don't trust it. My experience on Sony is that AF is about perfect at f/8 but often focuses on the wrong stuff. So I use center AF and focus recompose. If I can I use live view at 11x magnification.

You are absolutely right that there are issues with camera electronics, even if I must say I have seen little of that on my recent cameras. I had two Minolta DSLRs and five Sony DSLRs. I have not seen any electronics glitch. The main reason for me to upgrade was live view and the need of having a backup camera. I have kept three of the latest camera, two full frames I normally use and a high resolving APS-C for telephoto work and walk around. In addition I have had five long zoom cameras Minolta 7i, A1 and A2, a Panasonic and a Canon. One of the A2-s had a repair for a minor glitch (macro switch not working). That was about it. In addition I had bayonet replaced on an old 80-200/2.8 APO lens, returned an obviously bad Tamron sample, sent an obviously broken Minolta lens to service, just to have it sent back to me saying it was within specs...

So that was about it, 40+ years of experience. I also had a problem Minolta in film times, it was called the XD7. Leica was selling the same camera chassis as Leica R4 and had also a lot of problems. I guess Minolta went from mechanical to electronic and did a poor work on the new technology.

I looked at repair statistics on Lens Rentals. They don't report on Nikon D800/D800E left sensor issue, as they say they don't have enough statistical data. Both the D800/D800E and the Canon 5DIII are among the most frequently failed cameras. Nikon has problems with broken battery doors and on the canon the most frequent problem seems to be bent CF-pins. Lens rentals indicated that most other DSLRs are not far from getting on the list.

Regarding repairs Tamron repaired all their stuff with no cost. Sigma was shining with fast repairs at reasonable cost.

Sigma is interesting, some of their new lenses seem to be excellent. A Swedish montly (Foto) has done lens testing at Hasselblad (yes Hasselblad folks do their testing at Hasselblads labs). They compiled a list of then best lenses in 40 years of testing and one of the Sigma lenses made it to the list. The author of the list said that all Sigma macros would match any of the Leica lenses.

Here is the list (in case someone is interested): http://tidningenfoto.se/de-skarpaste-objektiven-fotos-tio-i-topp-lista/

I'm in no way a Sigma fan, but it seems they are moving into high quality lenses.

Now I agree this seems to happen more than any of us care to see and that goes for any OEM. I did not post Leica, Sony , Hassy and others but there always seems to be some bug or issue that crops up. Now as far as Phase yes I agree the DF had a power issue and it affected a good number of users even myself it happened to me in the beginning but like anything else you find workarounds and through a lot of folks trying diffrent things a switch in batteries helped a great deal, than like anyone else in the photo world a firmware fix addressed it as well. For most of us these things worked very well and some users maybe many never had any issues. What helped a lot of used was the ability to work with there dealers for any help needed in getting to a fix, repair and even replacements. Buy used and frankly your on your own just like buying a used Nikon or Canon. But dealers in 35mm are not like MF dealers at all and this needs to be clear. We had a workshop attendee on location have a complete DF failure , one phone call and a new body was in his hands by 10 am. Lets be really honest here shit happens and Murphy's law is ever present and I don't care what name is on the faceplate. My D800 failed twice for no reason. Pulled battery and turned it back on just like when I had my Phase DF. No difference same deal I could not shoot. I'm not dismissing the DF issue at all but on the same hand I'm not dismissing the left AF issue with my Nikons. Sorry to say but with electronics this crap just happens , do you know a PC that never needed a reboot. Even the Mac diehards can't say they never had reboot or see the grey screen of death. I know I have. LOL

Unfortunately and I even hate to say this but the truth is with electronics this is becoming the norm and not the exception. Folks this is digital it has a lot of pluses for us but we all know it has its downside as well. It's tougher to shoot , you now are the processing engine and frankly maybe more work than we shot film all for the convienance of instant results. Good , bad or indifferent this is the digital age and this is our norm. The real trick or hope as users is these OEMs recognize there issues and make a effort to correct it, repair it, upgrade it or replace it. First they need to acknowledge it and start working on it and if they don't than they would be what we would call incompetent I would not consider any of these companies incompetent as they all took some measures to make things right. My Leica M8 two of them to be exact spent months and I mean months in Solms trying to figure out the sudden death syndrome they had. Luckily they gave me loaners just imagine as a Pro losing two bodies without backups for months on end . Not a good situation and one major reason when I went to MF from the M8 in full capacity as a replacement I went through a dealer to do that. I value there service as they have provided useful help over the years in MF and also a close friendship which leads to a relationship that you can count on when you lens, back or body decide it does not want to go to work that day . Like I said in the world of electronics you need to protect yourself from the new normal of products that are not exactly ready sometimes.

Now on to wedding work with MF. I don't do a lot of it but have used both together and each system on its own. Now lets face it 35mm is a little easier to deal with but seriously I never found MF that hard to deal with even under the pressure of shooting a gig in fast order. Honestly I never ran into a problem shooting MF where I mumbled to myself I wish I was shooting 35mm right now. Maybe it's me but I found shooting MF itself as a camera pretty easy. The biggest issue that always is a thought is more about DOF and making sure you can carry focus through a image. To me that is the biggest limitation if there is one and it happens in all types of shooting even in landscape work is carrying DOF. We all know the smaller the format the given extra DOF given the same aperture, its the one plus 35 has over MF. Now a lot of this depends on your thoughts on DOF to begin with and your expectations given the shooting gig. But I don't agree with you can't do weddings with MF. I never found there is much I can't do with any cam , its just a matter of your determination of getting something done and working within the limitations and knowing your work arounds and how your going to accomplish your task. Obviously there was a time when almost a huge population of wedding shooters shot MF film and they got along just fine. Does shooting MF digital pose maybe a change in how you go about your work over 35mm than sure I would agree, you certainly have to think more and different of how to get things done. Nothing wrong with thinking and working hard to get the shots you need, as a Pro doing weddings lets face it that is why your getting paid.

Aside from the green cast my D800s have no issues. they are from Summer/Fall 2012.

Never had issues with the 5D cameras, all told five of them since the original 5D came out. I beat these things and while I always thought the CF doors would fall off they never did. No issues with the 1ds series either, not even failed fire wire ports. No problems with any digibacks either. I did have problems with the Mamiya AFD1 and 2. Premature shutter failure and bad communications between back and body. maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe issues are over blown.

Aside from the green cast my D800s have no issues. they are from Summer/Fall 2012.

Never had issues with the 5D cameras, all told five of them since the original 5D came out. I beat these things and while I always thought the CF doors would fall off they never did. No issues with the 1ds series either, not even failed fire wire ports. No problems with any digibacks either. I did have problems with the Mamiya AFD1 and 2. Premature shutter failure and bad communications between back and body. maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe issues are over blown.